tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53315461335269773882018-08-14T13:00:05.274-05:00Capital City Free PressJoseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.comBlogger2754125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-81771934867428718242018-08-14T13:00:00.000-05:002018-08-14T13:00:05.231-05:00Trump’s war on Turkey for Pastor Brunson&nbsp; Every year, thousands of American citizens are incarcerated in foreign countries. Yet, President Trump has decided to go to war to secure the release of only one of them. What gives with that?<br /><br />&nbsp; The citizen who is receiving the privileged treatment is Andrew Brunson, an American pastor incarcerated in Turkey. He is charged with participating in an attempted coup in 2016 against Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; President Trump is up in arms over Brunson’s arrest and incarceration. To pressure Erdogan to release Brunson, Trump has imposed severe economic sanctions on Turkey that have contributed to a severe financial decline in the country. The Turkish lira, which had already dropped around 45 percent this year against the dollar, hit a low on Sunday and then plunged another 7 percent yesterday. Erdogan called Trump’s sanctions a “stab in the back.”<br /><br />&nbsp; Meanwhile, the U.S. mainstream press is jumping on the release-Brunson bandwagon. An August 10 <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/opinion/turkey-united-states-trump-erdogan.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-editorials" target="_blank">editorial</a> in the New York Times provides a good example. The Times writes:<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; On Friday, Mr. Trump announced in a tweet that he had authorized a doubling of the steel and aluminum tariffs against Turkey.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; The object is to force the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to release Andrew Brunson, an American and evangelical Christian pastor who has been imprisoned by Turkey since 2016 on <i>trumped-up</i> charges of aiding an aborted coup by Erdogan opponents. (Italics added.)<br /><br />&nbsp; The reason I italicized the term “trumped-up” is because when I read it, my immediate reaction was the following: How does the New York Times editorial board know that the charges are “trumped-up,” as in false and bogus? How do they know that Brunson is innocent of what he is being charged with? There certainly is no indication in the editorial that the Times has reviewed any evidence that the Turkish authorities may have against Brunson.<br /><br />&nbsp; Indeed, how does Trump know that Brunson is innocent of the charges? How can be so certain that Brunson is innocent that he is willing to inflict massive economic harm on the people of Turkey through his unilateral imposition of severe economic sanctions?<br /><br />&nbsp; Mind you, I’m not suggesting that Brunson is guilty. I don’t have any idea whether he’s guilty or innocent. What I am simply asking is: How do Trump and the New York Times know that he is innocent? Does it even matter to them whether he is guilty or not?<br /><br />&nbsp; After all, they are not going after those foreign regimes around the world that have incarcerated thousands of other Americans. Why not target those regimes in the attempt to secure the release of those Americans? Why only Brunson? What’s different about him?<br /><br />&nbsp; Indeed, according to the Times’s editorial, the Turkish authorities detained another 19 Americans. Yet, the U.S. focus is primarily on Brunson. What gives with that?<br /><br />&nbsp; Also, consider this fascinating excerpt from the Times’s editorial:<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; So far, the Turks, who <i>absurdly</i> accuse the United States government of complicity in that 2016 coup attempt…. (italics added.)<br /><br />&nbsp; Absurdly? Why absurdly?<br /><br />&nbsp; Of course, it’s not really clear what the Times refers to as “absurd.” The Times could be saying that it has reviewed top-secret CIA files regarding Turkey and concluded that there is no evidence to support the Turkish assertion. My hunch, though, is that that’s not what the Times means, especially since the CIA is not about to let anyone access its secret files on Turkey or any other nation.<br /><br />&nbsp; What the Times undoubtedly meant is that it is simply “absurd” to think that the CIA would initiate or participate in a such a coup. Yet, that is precisely what the core mission of the CIA is — regime change, whether by coup or assassination. The entire history of the CIA is replete with coups. Just recently was the CIA coup in Ukraine, which ended up launching the big brouhaha over Crimea with Russia. If we go back in history, we have the CIA’s coups in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, and others, along with the repeated assassinations or assassination attempts against people like Patrice Lumumba and Fidel Castro.<br /><br />&nbsp; In fact, the only thing that is really absurd is the notion that the possibility of a CIA coup is absurd.&nbsp; Of course, if the CIA was involved in the coup attempt against Erdogan, we wouldn’t learn about it for another 25-30 years, like with other coups that the CIA has initiated.<br /><br />&nbsp; The fact that the U.S. national-security state specializes in coups actually puts Americans who travel abroad at risk. That’s because whenever there is a coup, the targeted regime is likely to jump to the conclusion that any Americans who happen to be in the country are CIA assets helping to advance the coup. I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if the Turkish authorities have concluded that Brunson is a CIA asset, especially when the Turks see the overwhelming adverse reaction of U.S. officials and the U.S. mainstream press to his incarceration.<br /><br />&nbsp; The Times’s editorial points out Erdogan's&nbsp;authoritarian policies and practices. Unfortunately, the Times fails to point out the dark irony in all this, which is that America’s membership in NATO automatically requires the American people to defend this authoritarian, dictatorial, anti-freedom regime if it is ever attacked by another nation.<br /><br />&nbsp; Another dark irony is that by unilaterally waging war against Turkey with the imposition of sanctions — that is, without any congressional authorization whatsoever — Trump himself is engaging in the same type of authoritarian, dictatorial policies that Erdogan is engaging in.<br /><br />&nbsp; Finally, when an American citizen travels abroad, he takes his chances. Arrest and incarceration, even on bogus charges, is always a risk. If an American doesn’t want to take that risk, he should stay at home. He cannot expect Big Brother/Big Daddy to come to his assistance if he gets in trouble, especially because the U.S. Constitution does not authorize Big Brother/Big Daddy to do so.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sA_kU7BnnQs/VFF7pBLtgJI/AAAAAAAAAIM/oeiHuX9vTWgm21S56OP9YyBDt_rLEoOVACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/hornberger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="158" data-original-width="179" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sA_kU7BnnQs/VFF7pBLtgJI/AAAAAAAAAIM/oeiHuX9vTWgm21S56OP9YyBDt_rLEoOVACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/hornberger.jpg" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of <a href="http://www.fff.org/" target="_blank">The Future of Freedom Foundation</a>.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by The Future of Freedom Foundation.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-41608189236709413392018-08-13T13:00:00.000-05:002018-08-13T13:00:03.969-05:00Learning fiscal responsibility from the fall of MoviePass&nbsp; One year ago, a relatively-unknown company announced that, for a monthly fee of $9.95, subscribers could see one movie a day without paying anything at the box office. That’s right – even though the average movie ticket in the U.S. is $9 – a $9.95 monthly subscription could get you into 31 movies.<br /><br />&nbsp; Since last August, three million film-goers have subscribed to MoviePass, the company offering this seemingly too-good-to-be-true service.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; Profitability aside, the service worked. Many subscribers did, in fact, see movies day after day. Blockbusters like the 8th Star Wars film were viewed repeatedly by fans and, as loyal subscribers became the most company’s most potent salesmen, MoviePass’ subscription rate skyrocketed.<br /><br />&nbsp; Things didn’t stay rosy forever, though.<br /><br />&nbsp; The weekend before eventual $2 billion-earner Avengers: Infinity War hit theatres in late April, MoviePass conveniently announced that they would no longer allow repeat viewings of one movie.<br /><br />&nbsp; This was the beginning of the end.<br /><br />&nbsp; In the weeks following, MoviePass declared a slew of changes to their service, including blackouts of popular movies and surcharges to other films that, at times, were more expensive than buying a ticket without MoviePass (i.e. an $8 surcharge for a $5 movie).<br /><br />&nbsp; In late July, MoviePass subscribers found the system unavailable and customer service unresponsive. The company, as expected, finally ran out of cash.<br /><br />&nbsp; Although MoviePass was able to secure another loan to stay above water, the company’s future is in serious doubt. As of last week, the stock of MoviePass parent company Helios &amp; Matheson Analytics was trading at a lowly $0.06.<br /><br />&nbsp; The best way to learn, some say, is from failure. Alabama residents and lawmakers alike, therefore, should learn from the demise of MoviePass.<br /><br />&nbsp; The lesson? The importance of fiscal responsibility.<br /><br />&nbsp; Fiscal responsibility first demands a healthy sense of realism. MoviePass lacked realistic expectations and now needs another “another $1.2 billion,” according to CNN.<br /><br />&nbsp; The truth is that our public policy discussions are full of MoviePass-like hopes: ideas that are well-intentioned but simply lack realistic expectations. A system of government-sponsored “basic income”, in which residents receive generous sums of money for living expenses, is one recent example of this type of idea.<br /><br />&nbsp; Fiscal responsibility also requires honesty. Unlike MoviePass’ perhaps-knowingly deceptive relationship with its customers, policy-makers with accurate understandings of finance and revenue must be honest – off and on the campaign trail – about the financial viability of certain public policies. Lofty campaign promises made in full view of a different post-election reality do nothing but increase expectations and, when these expectations aren’t met, decrease trust in government.<br /><br />&nbsp; The problem is that, like MoviePass, giveaway ideas like these become popular fast, and often for good reason. These proposals are hopeful, compassionate, and promoted by people who genuinely believe they will work. Often, however, the “how” gets ignored, those who understand the likelihood of failure stand silent, and the project collapses.<br /><br />&nbsp; Instead of giving credence to unrealistic and unlikely proposals, Alabama residents and lawmakers should realistically and honestly engage public policy ideas that have the potential to succeed, not just for an official’s time in office, but in the long run. These ideas may not be as dramatic or fashionable as MoviePass, but they just might work.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eELOFn3DP2g/WoCbjq7Uv7I/AAAAAAAAAnU/25phK76Ez-sUEYvwzrOZq2O5Nk3dGudogCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Staff-Photos-for-website6-317x444.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="444" data-original-width="317" height="200" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eELOFn3DP2g/WoCbjq7Uv7I/AAAAAAAAAnU/25phK76Ez-sUEYvwzrOZq2O5Nk3dGudogCPcBGAYYCw/s200/Staff-Photos-for-website6-317x444.jpg" width="142" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Parker Snider is Manager of Policy Relations for the <a href="http://www.alabamapolicy.org/" target="_blank">Alabama Policy Institute</a>, an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational organization dedicated to strengthening free enterprise, defending limited government, and championing strong families.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by the Alabama Policy Institute.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-45538124596747670682018-08-12T13:00:00.000-05:002018-08-12T13:00:01.583-05:00Brett Kavanaugh threatens Americans’ fundamental right to vote&nbsp; Last week marked the 53rd anniversary of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In the years since the VRA’s enactment, however, its protections have not gone unchallenged. In a 2013 decision in <i>Shelby v. Holder</i>, a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court gutted <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf" target="_blank">Section 5 of the VRA</a>, a provision that prevented certain jurisdictions from unilaterally manipulating their voting policies and procedures. This ruling allowed legislators to enact discriminatory laws that make voting more difficult for both people of color and low-income Americans. With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy this past July, it is essential that the Senate demand a fair, independent nominee who will defend the fundamental rights of Americans.<br /><br />&nbsp; Brett M. Kavanaugh is not that nominee. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated a willingness to turn a blind eye to voter suppression and racial discrimination. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, Americans will almost certainly face further erosion of their voting rights.<br /><a name='more'></a><br /><b>Kavanaugh’s record shows a willingness to diminish the voices of marginalized groups</b><br /><br />&nbsp; As counsel of record for Kirkland and Ellis in 1999, Kavanaugh defended efforts to strip away the rights of Native Hawaiians in choosing the state official responsible for protecting the rights and culture of Hawaii’s indigenous peoples. Kavanaugh argued that giving this choice to Native Hawaiians, instead of all Hawaiian voters, constituted racial separatism rather than an effort to support a community that suffered historic injustices at the hands of the U.S. government. This demonstrates not only his ignorance of the systems that perpetuate inequality but also his willingness to diminish the voices of marginalized groups for political gain. In the wake of the case, Kavanaugh criticized the Clinton administration in The Wall Street Journal for its support of voting rights for Native Hawaiians. After the election of President George W. Bush, Kavanaugh was hired as an associate by the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzalez. Later, he was nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit.<br /><br />&nbsp; Serving as a judge in 2012, Kavanaugh approved a <a href="https://www.thestate.com/news/local/article14393210.html" target="_blank">strict South Carolina voter ID law</a>, which went into effect that same year. In the majority opinion, he wrote that the law was not discriminatory despite evidence from the U.S. Department of Justice that it would disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters of color. He also wrote that the law was not enacted for a discriminatory purpose, minimizing the fact that the bill’s author, state Rep. Alan Clemmons (R-SC), responded enthusiastically to a racially charged email from a constituent. That email stated that if African Americans were offered money to get IDs, it would “be like a swarm of bees going after a watermelon.” Noticeably absent from Kavanaugh’s opinion was any acknowledgment of the importance of Section 5 of the VRA. In fact, the concurring judges in the case felt compelled to <a href="http://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/a-justice-brett-kavanaugh-would-pose-serious-danger-to-voting-rights/" target="_blank">write a separate opinion</a> underscoring the “vital function” of Section 5. Kavanaugh’s actions in this case suggest that he may dispute the enduring need for Section 5—and, perhaps, the VRA as a whole.<br /><br />&nbsp; And Kavanaugh’s record extends well-beyond his time as a federal judge. Kavanaugh previously served as President George W. Bush’s staff secretary. His job was “to give recommendations and advice” to the president. During his tenure, the Bush administration based hiring decisions at the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division on ideological views; reduced enforcement of Section 5; and questioned the need to renew the VRA altogether. Now, Kavanaugh’s allies in the Senate are working to shield his records from his time as staff secretary from public view. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has only requested that the National Archives produce records from Kavanaugh’s time as associate counsel and senior associate counsel in the George W. Bush White House, not his time as staff secretary. Although the National Archives recently announced that it will not be able to produce this limited number of Kavanaugh’s records until late October, his allies are recklessly pushing for confirmation hearings. Efforts to hide his advisory role in an administration that undermined voting rights only compound concerns about his views on this critical issue.<br /><br /><u>Conclusion</u><br /><br />The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to address the violent and systemic disenfranchisement that plagued the United States for centuries. Upon its passage, the VRA explicitly prohibited discriminatory voting policies and procedures, along with containing robust oversight and enforcement mechanisms for bad actors. And its effects were swift and significant. In Mississippi, black voter registration increased from 7 percent in 1964 to 67 percent in 1969. Despite the VRA’s continued importance, however, Kavanaugh’s record suggests that he questions its utility; is skeptical of voter suppression; and dismisses the lingering effects of past discrimination.<br /><br />&nbsp; Confirming Kavanaugh would cement an anti-voting majority on the Supreme Court for a generation. Since the disastrous decision in <i>Shelby v. Holder</i>, lawmakers have enacted strict voter ID laws, scaled back early voting, and shuttered polling places. Each of these policies makes voting more difficult for American citizens—especially citizens of color. Kavanaugh’s confirmation would open the door to further state legislative action to suppress voter turnout. As senators reflect on the legacy of the Voting Rights Act, they must work to ensure that the Supreme Court protects the most fundamental right of all—voting.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Connor Maxwell is a research associate for the Race and Ethnicity Policy team at the <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/" target="_blank">Center for American Progress</a>.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by the Center for American Progress.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-74608490335919240332018-08-11T13:00:00.000-05:002018-08-11T13:00:11.526-05:00Hank Sanders: Senate Sketches #1626 - Injustice is rolling&nbsp; Injustice. Injustice. Injustice. Injustice is rolling down like rivers of waters and unrighteousness like a mighty stream. No, I did not make a mistake and put “injustice” where I should have put “justice” or “unrighteousness” where I should have put “righteousness.” No, I am not talking about Biblical times when the prophet Amos lived. Injustice is rolling down like rivers of waters.<br /><br />&nbsp; I am not talking about far off places. I am not talking about far-off times. I am not talking about Africa, South America, Asia, etc. I am not talking about past times of slavery and segregation. I am talking about right now. I am talking about right here in Selma, Alabama.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; Back in 1973, I was convicted of assault and battery and sentenced to jail. A White man pushed my wife down and was standing over her. I jumped out of the car and hit the man, knocking him down. The man, a postal employee, got up and stabbed me in my left side. I still have kidney-related limitation from the stab. At the trial, he did not even lie about what happened. Still, he walked free while I was convicted and sentenced to jail. I appealed the conviction and all the documents disappeared. I have not found the&nbsp;documents to this day. Everyone – the mayor, the judge, the prosecutor, the police officers – was White. I just knew that such things would not happen in five years when African Americans held some of these positions. I was wrong on the time and wrong on the race.<br /><br />&nbsp; A number of things have happened during the last six or so months that reek of similar injustice. I want to share just a few examples. The first one involves a Black man who went to a church, went into the pulpit and was put out of the church. He went peacefully. Later he sent a text to his friend saying he was considering killing the pastor of the church. Months later, the friend showed the text to another friend who shared it with a member of the church, who then told the police about it. The man had not said anything to the pastor or done anything and never sent the text to him.<br /><br />&nbsp; The district attorney, who is Black and a member of the church, charged the man with domestic terrorism. Bail of $2.5 million was set. The district judge, who is White, allowed the outrageous bail bond to stand. It took more than a year to get the bond reduced so the man could get out of jail. After years of litigation, a circuit judge, who is White, recently dismissed the charges. The Black district attorney, at this very moment, is trying to reinstate charges of domestic terrorism.<br /><br />&nbsp; My wife, Faya Rose Toure, was at a polling place in Dallas County on December 12, 2018, the day Doug Jones was elected to the U.S. Senate. She had my car. A White man tore a “Vote or Die” sign off the car and threatened to kill her. To date, no warrant has been issued by the sheriff or deputy sheriff (both are White) in spite of numerous complaints.<br /><br />&nbsp; Some weeks ago, someone called our Selma law office multiple times. Each time they told the receptionist that they were going to kill Faya Rose Toure. Complaints were made to the Selma Police Department. The caller’s number was provided to the police. Absolutely nothing has been done about it.<br /><br />&nbsp; The same person also called the Z105.3 radio station several times with similar death threats. Faya does the Faya’s Fire Radio program on this station. This information was also provided to the Selma police chief, who is White. Nothing has been done about it.<br /><br />&nbsp; Black Selma City Councilman Sam Randolph was recently charged with “peeing in the streets” by the White Selma chief of police. The councilman vehemently denies that he did such a thing. The Selma police chief also called the councilman’s employer in Montgomery and said, “You have a fugitive working for you.” No warrant had been filed at the time. What started this development was an exchange of words between the mayor of Selma and the councilman. Both are Black. This happened in a Selma City Council meeting. The White police chief took up the disagreement and exchanged words. The police claimed the “peeing in the street episode” supposedly happened some weeks earlier. The councilman was charged and arrested.<br /><br />&nbsp; On July 16, 2018, Faya Rose Toure was arrested for removing a White probate judge candidate’s political signs from the public right of way. The sign was in front of the Tabernacle Baptist Church, the first church in Selma to allow a mass meeting to be held during the Voting Rights Movement in the 1960s. A church deacon, who was standing in front of the church, thanked her for moving the objectionable sign.<br /><br />&nbsp; The church deacon said that Tabernacle Church members objected to the political sign in front of their church, but they did not think they could remove the sign because it was on the public right of way. In fact, the City of Selma has a municipal ordinance prohibiting the placing of political candidates' signs on public rights of way. Faya Rose was also charged with eluding the police. When an officer in an unmarked car turned on his blue lights, she drove slowly several blocks until she located some people to witness the stop. Otherwise, an officer could shoot her and swear she went for a gun.<br /><br />&nbsp; It’s been 54 years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law. It’s been 53 years since the 1965 Voting Rights Act became law. It’s been 44 years since I was unjustly arrested, convicted, and jailed in Selma. A lot has changed in Selma. However, injustice is still rolling down like rivers of waters.<br /><br />Epilogue – If the injustice is rolling down like rivers of waters on a 73-year-old mother, grandmother, attorney, former city judge, and wife of a state senator with resources to fight, just think of the flood faced by the poor, the oppressed, and the left out.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--rdNGiYqLdM/U4YhDd3nYkI/AAAAAAAAAGY/Wfd7_wSBzZ4kRexzpJBE41VQX21HOUMnQCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Hank%2BSanders.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="283" data-original-width="202" height="200" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--rdNGiYqLdM/U4YhDd3nYkI/AAAAAAAAAGY/Wfd7_wSBzZ4kRexzpJBE41VQX21HOUMnQCPcBGAYYCw/s200/Hank%2BSanders.jpg" width="142" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Hank Sanders represents Senate District 23 in the <a href="http://www.legislature.state.al.us/aliswww/default.aspx" target="_blank">Alabama Legislature</a>.Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-57207926401570307522018-08-10T13:00:00.000-05:002018-08-10T13:00:02.649-05:00Rollback of EPA clean car standards will cost you at least $500 a year&nbsp; On August 2, the Trump administration <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2018/08/01/90c818ac-9125-11e8-8322-b5482bf5e0f5_story.html?utm_term=.119aa88c637a&amp;noredirect=on" target="_blank">proposed</a> rolling back the clean car standards, Obama-era regulations that require new cars for model years 2017-2025 to average more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025. In addition to the environmental impact that has already been reported by the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/climate/trump-auto-emissions-california.html" target="_blank">New York Times</a> and the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2018/08/01/90c818ac-9125-11e8-8322-b5482bf5e0f5_story.html?utm_term=.c29f1487b09b&amp;wpisrc=al_news__alert-economy--alert-national&amp;wpmk=1" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>—which could be massive, since cars and trucks account for 45 percent of U.S. oil consumption and 20 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions—this rollback will be expensive for the American public.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; The announcement, published in the Wall Street Journal by Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and Acting Administrator of the E.P.A. Andrew Wheeler, is part of a plan that was set in motion by Wheeler’s predecessor, Scott Pruitt. In just over a year as head of the E.P.A., Pruitt managed to roll back, reconsider, delay, or otherwise tinker with more than 14 safeguards that protect everything from the air we breathe to the water we drink. In total, taking away all of these protections will cost Americans upwards of $260 billion annually in climate, health, and fuel impacts—that’s $2,000 in costs annually for every American household.<br /><br />&nbsp; Here’s how the cost breaks down specifically for today’s clean cars rollback announcement:<br /><br /><b>The average American family will pay an additional $500 per year in fuel costs.</b><br /><br />&nbsp; The current rules require automakers to nearly double the fuel economy of passenger vehicles by 2025. But with this announcement, the standards will be frozen at 2020 levels—meaning that fuel economy for new cars will stay lower, and Americans will be stuck with cars that consume more gasoline.<br /><br />&nbsp; That increased cost to individuals will,&nbsp;in turn, cost the U.S. economy more than $450 billion over the next thirty years. Each family’s increased fuel expenses are ultimately withheld from the economy and will grow with each year the standards are not in place and fuel savings are relinquished.<br /><br />&nbsp; If the existing standards were left in place, Americans would have saved $1.7 trillion on fuel. Owners of model year 2025 cars were likely to see a personal savings of $2,800 over the lifetime of their vehicles compared to 2020 vehicles. For light trucks, owners would save $4,500.<br /><br /><b>The country will take on another $5.5-$7.9 billion in additional costs from worsening air pollution.</b><br /><br />&nbsp; Already, 25 million Americans, including 6 million children, suffer from asthma; that’s around $81 billion annually in medical costs and lost work and school days nationwide. With a rollback of these standards, Americans would be stuck with the bill for an additional $5.5-7.9 billion each year in health and climate impacts. Those impacts can be anything from additional medical costs associated with bad air quality (treating asthma and purchasing inhalers), to costs associated with climate change (such as damage from extreme weather).<br /><br /><b>The country will also lose about 60,000 jobs.</b><br /><br />&nbsp; According to <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/don-anair/auto-standards-rollback-oil-companies-win-everyone-else-loses?_ga=2.245936450.799452911.1533134695-1035434605.1532961769" target="_blank">an analysis</a> by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the United States could lose 60,000 jobs in 2025 as we turn over leadership on efficiency technology to other countries like China. With the clean car standards in place, the economy was projected to add nearly 100,000 jobs by 2025.<br /><br />&nbsp; The great irony here is that the administration claims that the regulation would “impose significant costs on American consumers and eliminate jobs.” But basic math says the plan to roll it back will hurt a whole lot more.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Sally Hardin is a research analyst for the Energy and Environment War Room at the <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/" target="_blank">Center American Progress</a>.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by <a href="https://talkpoverty.org/" target="_blank">TalkPoverty.org</a>.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-30574831485866849762018-08-09T13:00:00.000-05:002018-08-09T13:00:07.398-05:00Who owns your body?&nbsp; <a href="http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/07/26/ohio-mom-kidney-son-transplant" target="_blank">Norma Brickey</a>, an eighty-two-year-old mother, has been driving the streets of Columbus, Ohio, with a sign in her car window reading, “My son needs a kidney, O positive,” followed by her phone number. Both she and another of her sons have had kidney transplants. All three suffer from polycystic kidney disease, a condition in which cysts form on the kidneys.<br /><br />&nbsp; Her son who is still waiting for a kidney transplant goes to dialysis for four hours&nbsp;and then goes to his job as a nurse for 12 hours. He has been on dialysis for almost two years. “This is the year I’m going to find him a kidney,” says his mother. She doesn’t “make extra trips for people to see the sign.” She just does her errands, and almost every day gets a call.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; Why doesn’t Norma Brickey just offer to pay someone to give one of his kidneys to her son? Why doesn’t she just offer to purchase a kidney from the family of someone who recently died? Why doesn’t she just offer to pay someone to have his kidneys harvested from his body when he dies?<br /><br />&nbsp; The first successful kidney transplant was done in 1954. Since then, hundreds of thousands of people have undergone a kidney transplant. More than 670,000 people in the United States live with end-stage renal disease. More than 34,000 kidney transplants were performed last year. It’s not exactly rocket science to transplant a kidney.<br /><br />&nbsp; The problem is that Norma Brickey can’t make those offers. And money has nothing to do with it. She isn’t allowed to make such offers. No one is allowed to sell her any of the organs in his body — not while he’s alive and not after he’s dead.<br /><br />&nbsp; Why?<br /><br />&nbsp; Because the federal government has so decreed it.<br /><br />&nbsp; Selling the organs in your body while you are alive (kidney or intestine segment) or after you are dead (heart, lungs, liver, et cetera) is currently a criminal action.<br /><br />&nbsp; Public Law 98-507 (S.2048, 98 Stat. 2339), the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), was enacted on October 19, 1984. It outlawed the sale of bodily organs and established the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) to facilitate the procurement of such organs. The program is administered by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), a nonprofit organization.<br /><br />&nbsp; According to the NOTA, “It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce.” The penalty is a fine of $50,000 or a maximum of five years in prison, or both. The Senate Report accompanying NOTA stated that “human body parts should not be viewed as commodities.”<br /><br />&nbsp; According to the OPTN,<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; -114,440 people need a lifesaving organ transplant, including 94,900 waiting for kidneys.<br />&nbsp; &nbsp; -Every ten minutes, someone is added to the national transplant waiting list.<br />&nbsp; &nbsp; -On average, 95 transplants take place each day in the United States.<br /><br />&nbsp; However,<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; -More than 7,000 candidates died in 2016 while on the waiting list.<br />&nbsp; &nbsp; -Despite advances in medicine and technology, and increased awareness of organ donation and transplantation, there continues to be a gap between supply and demand.<br />&nbsp; &nbsp; -More progress is needed to ensure that all candidates have a chance to receive a transplant.<br /><br />&nbsp; Because there are not “enough donated organs to transplant everyone in need,” the factors of “justice (fair consideration of candidates’ circumstances and medical needs), and medical utility (trying to increase the number of transplants performed and the length of time patients and organs survive)” must be balanced.<br /><br />&nbsp; Before an organ is allocated for transplant, all “candidates on the waiting list that are incompatible with the donor because of blood type, height, weight and other medical factors are automatically screened from any potential matches.” A computer application “determines the order that the other candidates will receive offers, according to national policies.”<br /><br />&nbsp; There are many factors that account for how long someone might wait for a transplant: blood type, tissue type, height and weight of transplant candidate, size of donated organ, medical urgency, time on the waiting list, the distance between the donor’s hospital and the potential donor organ, how many donors there are in the local area over a period of time, the transplant center’s criteria for accepting organ offers.<br /><br />&nbsp; The ability to pay for an organ that is needed for a transplant and the willingness to sell one have nothing to do with the procuring of an organ.<br /><br />&nbsp; If there is one thing that the poorest people in the world have in common with the richest it is that both groups own their own body. The poor man may not have anything else, but he has himself. His body belongs to him. And if it belongs to him, then it doesn’t belong to the government. And if you own your own body, then you certainly also own the organs in your body. Since anyone should be able to do what he wants with his own body — as long as his activities are peaceful, his interactions are consensual, his associations are voluntary, and he doesn’t violate the personal or property rights of anyone else — anyone should have the freedom to sell his bodily organs to the highest bidder.<br /><br />&nbsp; And that’s not all. If a person’s body belongs to him, then he should have the right to do whatever he wishes to or with his own body: medicate it as he sees fit; rent it out for sexual favors; engage in recreational activities as he pleases; modify it; or inject, snort, inhale, or otherwise ingest substances into it — as long as he is paying the bill for those things and not violating anyone else’s rights while he is doing any of them.<br /><br />&nbsp; What a person does with his body might be dangerous, unhealthy, destructive, or immoral, but it is an illegitimate function of government to concern itself with what he does with his own body. Actions that are peaceful, private, voluntary, and consensual should never be criminalized.<br /><br />&nbsp; Those with objections to what someone does to or with his body have the right to persuade people to do otherwise. They do not have the right to use the force of government to stop people from engaging in activities that do not violate anyone else’s rights.<br /><br />&nbsp; Who owns your body? If the government can control what you put in it, what you do with it, and what you allow others to do to it, then the government is the de facto owner of your body and every organ in it.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5h--9Nvbw1c/VSGKtZpdoZI/AAAAAAAAANc/K2yePkWNlCEQAl4gGZ8_eqBU6OHRzXdFwCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Laurence_M_Vance.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="639" data-original-width="732" height="174" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5h--9Nvbw1c/VSGKtZpdoZI/AAAAAAAAANc/K2yePkWNlCEQAl4gGZ8_eqBU6OHRzXdFwCPcBGAYYCw/s200/Laurence_M_Vance.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Laurence M. Vance is a columnist and policy advisor for <a href="http://www.fff.org/" target="_blank">The Future of Freedom Foundation</a>, an associated scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and a columnist, blogger, and book reviewer at LewRockwell.com. He is the author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Control-Second-Amendment-Laurence-Vance/dp/0996786910/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1522145850&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=vance+gun+control&amp;dpID=41bylpuONWL&amp;preST=_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_QL70_&amp;dpSrc=srch" target="_blank">Gun Control and the Second Amendment</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Drugs-Freedom/dp/0982369751/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1522145891&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=vance+the+war+on+drugs&amp;dpID=41l9lCxjAFL&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch" target="_blank">The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom</a>, and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Empire-Military-Follies-Foreign/dp/0982369786/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1522145930&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=vance+war+empire&amp;dpID=51ZNqv7fscL&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch" target="_blank">War, Empire and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy</a>. His newest books are <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Free-Trade-Protectionism-Laurence-Vance/dp/0996786929/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1522145966&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=vance+free+trade&amp;dpID=41Pr5%252BU4AhL&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch" target="_blank">Free Trade or Protectionism?</a> and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Free-Society-Laurence-M-Vance/dp/0996786937/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1522146008&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=vance+free+society&amp;dpID=516BfURFutL&amp;preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&amp;dpSrc=srch" target="_blank">The Free Society</a>. Visit his website: <a href="http://www.vancepublications.com/" target="_blank">www.vancepublications.com</a>. Send him <a class="" href="mailto:lmvance@laurencemvance.com" target="_blank">e-mail</a>.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by The Future of Freedom Foundation.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-72822480411622907902018-08-08T13:00:00.000-05:002018-08-08T13:00:07.625-05:00Steve Flowers: Inside the Statehouse – Primary political potpourri&nbsp; Now that the dust has settled on the primaries, allow me to share with you some thoughts on the Alabama political stage.<br /><br />&nbsp; There is an old saying that says, the more things change, the more they stay the same. This old adage is true in Alabama politics.<br /><br />&nbsp; First of all, “All politics is local.” In the June 5 primaries, the turnout was about 25 percent on average around the state. However, the ultimate voter turnout was 27 percent due to local races. Alabamians are more interested in who is sheriff and probate judge than who is lieutenant governor or attorney general.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; Secretary of State John Merrill, predicted a 27 percent turnout on June 5. Guess what, there was a 27 percent turnout. Almost 873,000 Alabamians voted. There were twice as many voters, 590,000, that chose the Republican ballot over the Democratic slate. There were 283,000 Democratic voters.<br /><br />&nbsp; What this tells me is that we are still a very red Republican state. We have 29 elected statewide officeholders in the state. All 29 are Republican. When all the votes are counted in November, that 29 out of 29 figure will likely remain the same in the Heart of Dixie. The Democrats have a good horse in Walt Maddox. He may run close to Kay Ivey, but the odds favor an incumbent GOP governor who has done nothing wrong and sits in the governor’s office during a robust economic period. I would put the odds at 56 to 44 in Ivey’s favor.<br /><br />&nbsp; The Alabama Legislature will remain about the same after the November General Election as we head into the next quadrennium. The Alabama House of Representatives will have an over 2 to 1 GOP majority. The numbers will be about what they are now, 72 Republicans and 33 Democrats.<br /><br />&nbsp; The Alabama Senate will more than likely have a 3 to 1 GOP edge. The members now are 26 Republican, eight Democrats and one Independent. The Democrats may very well pick up a Senate seat in Northwest Alabama with Johnny Mack Morrow vs. Larry Stutts, which would bring them to nine. The Independent seat being held by Sen. Harri Ann Smith in the Wiregrass is one of the most Republican in the state. Harri Ann is retiring. It will be taken by the very Republican and popular state representative, Donnie Chesteen.&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp; Whoever made the decision to oust Harri Ann from the Republican Party six years ago made a very poor decision. She continued to be elected as an Independent. Her popularity exudes my example of all politics being local and how home folks know you best.<br /><br />&nbsp; The GOP control of the Senate will probably be 26 to 9 or 27 to 8.<br /><br />&nbsp; Speaking of control, the Big Dog still walks the halls of the State House. The Alabama Farmers Federation or Alfa still controls the legislature. They ran the table in legislative races all over the state. That is because they ran most of the races for their candidates. They are the kings of Goat Hill, the same way they were in 1901 when the state constitution was written. The more things change, the more they stay the same.<br /><br />&nbsp; Alfa perennially puts their power, muscle,&nbsp;and interest in the legislature. They endorse in the statewide races and their endorsement is invaluable, especially in secondary state races. Their members vote that ballot and many conservative Alabamians look over the Farmers’ shoulder and vote along with them.<br /><br />&nbsp; Alfa may give a token contribution to the Alabama Agriculture Commissioner, Attorney General, or Lieutenant Governor race and maybe $25,000 to the governor’s race. However, it is not unusual for them to put up to $50,000 in a House race and over $100,000 into a Senate race, along with excellent political strategy and pastures along interstates to put big signs on.<br /><br />&nbsp; They use to play in the governor’s race. However, they got burned badly by Bob Riley when they helped him get elected and the first thing he did was stab them in the back. However, they have slipped around this year and will not only own the legislature, they will probably have a good friend in the governor’s office as well.<br /><br />&nbsp; The day before the primary, Kay Ivey boarded Jimmy Ranes' jet to fly around the state. The first person to board with her was Beth Chapman, Alfa’s political consultant. The next night when she came off the platform after giving her victory speech, guess who was helping her off the stage and holding her arm so that she would not fall? It was Jimmy Parnell, the Farmers Federation president.<br /><br />&nbsp; Folks, do not look for property taxes to be increased in the Heart of Dixie over the next four years.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ya5UTCQCdCk/WXaSfFzELNI/AAAAAAAAAjE/5g1C4c4JZt4hfzX9eDkdgEoWDhMBXBgeACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/steve-flowers-about-300x300.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="300" height="200" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ya5UTCQCdCk/WXaSfFzELNI/AAAAAAAAAjE/5g1C4c4JZt4hfzX9eDkdgEoWDhMBXBgeACPcBGAYYCw/s200/steve-flowers-about-300x300.jpeg" width="200" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at <a href="http://www.steveflowers.us/" target="_blank">http://www.steveflowers.us/</a>. He can also be found on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/SteveFlowersInsideTheStatehouse" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveFlowersAL" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-74586561245150045102018-08-07T13:00:00.000-05:002018-08-07T13:00:00.269-05:00How conservative principles benefit the environment: A lesson from Alabama’s red snapper&nbsp; Many coastal and red snapper loving Alabamians may find themselves disappointed by recent events.<br /><br />&nbsp; On July 16th, the State of Alabama announced that recreational red snapper fishing season would be cut six weeks short. A result of unexpectedly high catch levels this summer, the state reached its annual quota sooner than anticipated.<br /><br />&nbsp; For families and anglers who planned trips for late July and August, frustration with the early closing date is understandable. Why should the government be able to regulate an activity as natural as red snapper fishing?<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; Unfortunately, over-fishing in recent decades has threatened the very survival of red snapper populations off the Alabama coast.<br /><br />&nbsp; Early government management strategies to address the problem included shortened seasons for both commercial and recreational snapper fishing. These strategies, however, struggled to revitalize gulf populations.<br /><br />&nbsp; While recreational snapper fishing is still constrained by short seasons, a revolutionary program instituted in the commercial sector in the mid-2000s has enabled snapper populations to flourish.<br /><br />&nbsp; Under the Bush administration, the federal government implemented an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) system in 2007. Based on property rights—a foundational element of a free market economy—the IFQ system created a personal investment in the fishery for each angler, thus incentivizing proper resource management. The red snapper IFQ grants each commercial fisherman a percentage share of the total allowable catch for that calendar year.<br /><br />&nbsp; Anglers can buy, sell, or lease their IFQ shares as property, giving them plenty of flexibility. Plus, they can choose when to fish throughout the year, keeping the market supplied year-round with fresh gulf snapper.<br /><br />&nbsp; Although not perfect, the IFQ program avoids stringent regulations that tell anglers when or how to fish. Most importantly, it encourages personal responsibility among anglers. This is because overfishing one’s share will deplete the fishery thus impairing anglers’ abilities to sell their shares on the market for a high price.<br /><br />&nbsp; This solution is rooted in the principle of limited government and in good stewardship of one of our state’s most precious resources.<br /><br />&nbsp; It has proven to be successful, too.<br /><br />&nbsp; After low levels persisted for decades, red snapper reproductive capabilities have experienced a sharp improvement since the implementation of commercial IFQs.<br /><br />&nbsp; Additionally, the IFQ’s impact on rejuvenating gulf snapper populations has benefits that are beginning to trickle towards recreational anglers.<br /><br />&nbsp; This year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—which regulates and manages red snapper fishing for the federal government—granted Alabama an Exempted Fishing Permit, allowing the state to manage its own recreational fishing season by setting the dates and tracking the pounds of red snapper harvested. This permit reduces federal oversight and returns control of snapper fishing to the state.<br /><br />&nbsp; It is a sharp turn from last year’s three-day federal season—prior to a federal extension—and a sign of longer recreational seasons and better fishing in the coming years.<br /><br />&nbsp; Despite the disappointment of a shorter season this year, red snapper fishing is on the rise thanks to this fundamental understanding of the power of property rights in free markets.<br /><br />&nbsp; Therefore, conservatives should invest an interest in environmental stewardship. The IFQ system demonstrates that, when applied to environmental challenges, conservative understandings of personal responsibility and limited government can reduce governmental obstruction to natural resource use and lead to positive outcomes.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Jack Tucker is a Junior Policy Fellow with the <a href="http://www.alabamapolicy.org/" target="_blank">Alabama Policy Institute</a>.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by the Alabama Policy Institute.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-23475954445004998222018-08-06T13:00:00.000-05:002018-08-06T13:00:05.182-05:00Craig Ford: A new school year is starting, but it should be starting later&nbsp; Remember when school didn’t start until after Labor Day? In a matter of days, students all across Alabama will start a new school year, and yet it’s only the second week of August!<br /><br />&nbsp; Instead of spending the last few weeks of August working summer jobs or on family vacations, teachers and students are preparing to head back to school. Why?<br /><br />&nbsp; It wasn’t always this way. In 2012, the Alabama Legislature passed a school start date bill that mandated a longer summer break for our public schools. It was a bill that had broad bipartisan support. Supporters argued that extending the summer break would benefit families, students, employers, Alabama’s tourism industry, and even the government.<br /><br />&nbsp; But then the legislature failed to renew it, and the state did not get to feel the maximum benefits of the law.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; Shortening summer vacation to only two months hurts Alabama families. Kids no longer get to spend August playing, going to camp, or doing some last minute reading. Families miss out on important, quality vacation time together (and with both of my kids now grown and out of the house, I can tell you those family vacations are precious while they last!).<br /><br />&nbsp; For teachers and other educators, the summer months are the only time they can do any professional development work, such as taking classes for an advanced degree or participating in training programs that help them learn more effective methods for teaching various subjects.<br /><br />&nbsp; Older students and even some teachers use those summer months to work summer jobs that help them learn important skills and make some extra money that some families rely on. A study by the Association of American Educators revealed that one in five teachers work a second job.<br /><br />&nbsp; An Alabama teacher I spoke with said if he had a full summer to work he wouldn’t need to moonlight during the school year and could keep his focus solely on his classroom. A longer summer vacation would provide students and teachers a greater opportunity to earn money during the summer and reduce the amount of work they need during the school year, allowing school to be their main concern.<br /><br />&nbsp; The latest reports show that pushing back the school start date would generate an estimated $300 million annually in additional revenue and create about 4,500 full-time jobs across the state. More money spent in Alabama means more money to better fund public education.<br /><br />&nbsp; A shorter summer break is hurting education by depriving schools of funding they would otherwise be getting, and it's hurting Alabama’s economy by cutting into the business our tourism industry is losing in the month of August.<br /><br />&nbsp; On top of that, the state of Alabama also has to spend more money when school starts in early to mid-August. Part of that is due to higher air conditioning bills. Many schools turn their air conditioners off or set them on a higher temperature during the summer, which they obviously can’t do once students and educators return to school.<br /><br />&nbsp; Additionally, starting school earlier increases other expenditures that we otherwise wouldn’t be spending, such as gas and maintenance for school buses.<br /><br />&nbsp; But what about the argument that starting school earlier is better for students' memory and academic performance?<br /><br />&nbsp; According to former Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott, “Early start dates do not translate into academic excellence.” Said Scott, “Academic excellence is a combination of four factors: sound public policy, talented teachers, involved parents and motivated students.”<br /><br />&nbsp; I couldn’t agree more. And just because school is not in session doesn’t mean we can’t still have programs like summer reading to help maintain kids' knowledge and learning skills. In fact, I would like to see us expand these programs to include more math and science work. Maybe we should even make participation in these programs a requirement for enrolling in the next grade level?<br /><br />&nbsp; When the Flexible School Calendar Act of 2012 was passed, it focused on what was best for students and teachers. The act pushed back the school year to late August and offered a twelve-week summer vacation. The bill was supported by teachers and parents alike. It didn’t force schools to start at a particular time but did guarantee a full summer break. Unfortunately, it wasn’t reauthorized by the Alabama Legislature.<br /><br />&nbsp; So as everyone heads back to school this month, I wish you all luck. May this be a great year to be a student in Alabama! My hope is that this time next year our students are enjoying a longer, fuller summer if the legislature will renew the Flexible School Calendar Act.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iq9uFdzjA5U/VUlOSC9NX4I/AAAAAAAAAO0/VTzMjKfZs2wvKUfPRWhaxdbsrr9msouKACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Craig%2BFord.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="838" data-original-width="602" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iq9uFdzjA5U/VUlOSC9NX4I/AAAAAAAAAO0/VTzMjKfZs2wvKUfPRWhaxdbsrr9msouKACPcBGAYYCw/s200/Craig%2BFord.jpg" width="143" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Craig Ford represents Gadsden and Etowah County in the <a href="http://www.legislature.state.al.us/aliswww/ISD/Splash_House.aspx" target="_blank">Alabama House of Representatives</a>. He is currently running for the State Senate in District 10 as an Independent.&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>Editor's note:</i> This article originally appeared in the Capital City Free Press on August 4, 2017.Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-87745418735277162962018-08-05T13:00:00.000-05:002018-08-05T13:00:10.645-05:00The First Amendment was meant for times like now&nbsp; Donald Trump is working the old political shell game again — one that journalists must refuse to play and that every citizen should take as a lesson in civics about the real value of our First Amendment.<br /><br />&nbsp; Mere days after a July 20 meeting with the publisher of The New York Times that the White House asked to be “off-the-record,” Trump reversed course and made the conversation public via a series of tweets that ranged from outright fabrication to fanatical claims about the patriotism of journalists and how their work is “putting lives at risk.”<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; Trump’s Twitter tirade included his old favorites — the now somewhat ancient canard about “fake news” and the more recently invented catch-all for his critics, “Trump Derangement Syndrome” — with the new egocentric concept that somehow bad news about him besmirches the entire nation: “I will not allow our great country to be sold out by anti-Trump haters in the dying newspaper industry.”<br /><br />&nbsp; Ho-hum. For the handful of journalists assigned to report on the White House, the tweets offered little in substance or creativity beyond the norm — except to welcome Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger as a fellow target in the increasingly combative turf that surrounds the Oval Office.<br /><br />&nbsp; Journalists, please do not obsess over the president’s tweets — now or later. Put them into the record of his presidency and leave the outrage and chastising to those who deal in such, from cable TV pundits to the editorial pages of those newspapers.<br /><br />&nbsp; Get back to work covering things that matter to all of us — and not the distracting attacks on your work and our freedoms.<br /><br />&nbsp; My recommendations for more journalistic attention: Ailing efforts at economic protectionism, tax cuts fueling massive increases in the federal deficit, immigration issues — including the unsettled aftermath of the failed “lock ‘em up” tactic when the president tried to use children as a method of border security — along with things like plans to reduce protections for endangered wildlife and clean air guidelines. “Good, bad?” Tell me the news and let me decide.<br /><br />&nbsp; And then there is the investigation into Russian meddling in our 2016 elections and the matter of what is being done to prevent this hostile nation from doing it again in 2018 and 2020. And the still to be settled degree to which the Trump campaign welcomed — or even utilized — that meddling to attack its political opponents. Report on it fully — we need to know what happened then and what might happen in the future.<br /><br />&nbsp; For the rest of us, we should take this latest outburst as yet another prime of example of something that most of us likely never thought we would really, actually need: protection of a free press from a government seemingly not just hell-bent on countering news it doesn’t like, but working daily to obliterate it from the public sphere.<br /><br />&nbsp; Trump’s angry tweets included an illuminating reference to the Times and The Washington Post having written “bad stories even on very positive achievements.”&nbsp; Sorry, Mr. President, but the fawning headlines and chummy column items about your New York social life in the 1980s and 90s don’t make it in the real world of people’s lives or national policy.<br /><br />&nbsp; Since the United States began, we have expected our journalists to ask the tough — and very often, impertinent — questions we all would ask if we were on the job. “Who, What, When, Where, Why, How” and sometimes, “Why not?” or, “How in the world?”<br /><br />&nbsp; Those first six, the “Five Ws and one H,” are a long-standing professional guide for those who work in the news business. The last two are more personal&nbsp;and are the result of nearly 50 years of asking the first six.<br /><br />&nbsp; Each of them comes from the common sense observation that very little in life that is “good” for some comes without “not so good” for others, that actions and decisions very often involve risk, and that in a democracy, we — the people who, in the end, run this nation — need information about all of that. And, that information should come from a variety of sources, not just government handouts about “very positive achievements.”<br /><br />&nbsp; Presidents and others before you have tried to void that “the press” part of those 45 words of the First Amendment. Congress tried jailing journalists it didn’t like only a few years after the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. President Lincoln locked up “copperhead” editors in the 1860s who attacked his policies on pursuing the Civil War and ending slavery. A fearful nation was seduced into a “blacklist” pogrom against writers in the 1950s by an alcoholic Wisconsin congressman, Joseph McCarthy. And President Nixon, even before the throes of the Watergate scandal, had his news media “enemies” list to be targeted by government agencies.<br /><br />&nbsp; In the end, the public would not let them get away with those shortcuts through the Constitution to satisfy mere political goals.<br /><br />&nbsp; The First Amendment’s protections of a free press were not intended to simply be nice words on parchment or on stone, or just a handy slogan to be trotted as a matter of pride before a world in which no such protections exist.<br /><br />&nbsp; No, those were meant to set out a shared freedom that no individual officeholder could remove. Those words were meant for times when our freedom could be put at risk because political opportunism might have momentary appeal over our fundamental values.<br /><br />&nbsp; The First Amendment was meant for times like now.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gr_LNxyakNw/VxrbgCfhE9I/AAAAAAAAAWc/RfwTHpi3dqc_e-Wl8VS3CWC_PtTKyb95QCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Gene%2BPolicinski.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="938" data-original-width="667" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gr_LNxyakNw/VxrbgCfhE9I/AAAAAAAAAWc/RfwTHpi3dqc_e-Wl8VS3CWC_PtTKyb95QCPcBGAYYCw/s200/Gene%2BPolicinski.jpg" width="141" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Gene Policinski is president and chief operating officer of the <a href="https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/" target="_blank">Freedom Forum Institute</a>. He can be reached at <a href="mailto:gpolicinski@freedomforum.org" target="_blank">gpolicinski@freedomforum.org</a>, or follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/genefac" target="_blank">@genefac</a>.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by the Freedom Forum Institute.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-2709227002430662012018-08-04T13:00:00.000-05:002018-08-04T13:00:22.114-05:00Hank Sanders: Senate Sketches #1625 - Selma and Dallas County, Lord.... Selma and Dallas County!&nbsp; In 1965, the population of Selma was 28,000. Whites were a slight majority. The population of Dallas County was 56,000. Blacks were a slight majority. Selma is the county seat of Dallas County. But these populations don’t tell us nearly enough. One side had everything. The other side had virtually nothing. But that does not tell us enough either.<br /><br />&nbsp; In 1965, there were tens of thousands of White registered voters in Selma/Dallas County. There were 327 Black registered voters. Every city and county elected official was White. There was not a single Black elected official in either Selma or Dallas County. Whites had everything. Backs had little or nothing.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; In 1965, the conditions for Whites were dramatically better than that of Blacks in every economic and social category – income, ownership of property, employment, educational opportunity, business, etc. One race was on top in virtually every desirable category, and the other race was on the bottom in virtually every desirable category.<br /><br />&nbsp; In 1965, Selma and Dallas County were segregated in virtually every way. It was not just a separation of races. One race was crushed down determinedly, and the other was lifted up mightily. One was oppressed. The other was supreme. Some in one race were abused, exploited and lynched with impunity by some in the other race.<br /><br />&nbsp; In 1965, the City of Selma was led by Joe T. Smitherman, the Mayor of Selma. The police chief was Wilson Baker. Dallas County was led by Probate Judge Bernard Reynolds. The sheriff was the infamous Jim Clark. They all worked diligently to maintain a system of oppressive segregation. However, there was a slight difference in the degree of force used by city and county officials. However, force was ever-present, maintaining a system of oppression that was euphemistically called, “Our way of life.”<br /><br />&nbsp; Then there was a great clash: a clash of wills; a clash of spirits; a clash of determination; a clash of ways of life. The clashes played out in the Children Marches, the Teachers' March, various other marches, arrests, beatings, Bloody Sunday, the Selma-to-Montgomery March, murders of Jimmie Lee Jackson, Reverend James Reed and Viola Liuzzo, and more. One side had everything: all the laws and lawmen; all the guns and gunmen; all the business and jobs; all the banks and money; all the voters and elected officials; all the power and force; virtually everything. The other side had almost nothing. But it took what it had – praying prayers, singing songs and marching feet – and wrought a great victory. The evidence of the victory was the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which changed the country and impacted the world.<br /><br />&nbsp; Let’s fast forward to 2018. Some things have changed. Some have changed for the better and others for worse. The population of Dallas County has decreased from 56,000 to roughly 39,000. There are some 9,000 White registered voters and some 19,000 Black registered voters. It took 35 years from the clashes of 1965 and the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act for Selma to vote Mayor Joe T. Smitherman out of office in a majority Black city. He continued to preside over the City of Selma from 1965 to 2000. The Dallas County Probate Judge position is still held by Whites in a county 27 percent White and 70 percent Black.<br /><br />&nbsp; Selma has an African-American mayor and a majority black city council. However, the critical position of police chief has been consecutively held by Whites in a city that is 80 percent Black. Recently, an African American city councilman was arrested for allegedly “peeing in the street” at some time in the past. He strongly denies these allegations. Six cars of police officers came to harass him. He had recently exchanged heated words with the Black mayor and White police chief. Then my wife Faya Rose Toure – a mother, grandmother, attorney, community leader, and justice seeker – was arrested for taking a political sign of a White candidate off public property although municipal ordinances prohibit placement of candidates’ signs on public property. In my 45 years of firsthand involvement in political campaigns, not one person has been arrested for removing political signs.<br /><br />&nbsp; I have been informed on multiple occasions that certain White leaders cut deals with the last two winning mayoral candidates to ensure that Selma will have White police chiefs. That explains having White police chiefs in a city that is 80 percent Black and with a history of White police brutality.<br /><br />&nbsp; Whites make up 27 percent of the Dallas County population. African Americans make up 70 percent of the county’s population. There are seven county-wide elected positions. Whites hold six of these: probate judge; sheriff; district judge; tax collector; tax assessor; and coroner. Blacks hold just one of these positions: circuit clerk. The arrest and jailing of Faya Rose Toure was really about a heated runoff election for probate judge between a White and Black candidate.<br /><br />&nbsp; The City of Selma is rife with violence. It is the seventh most violent city in the country for municipalities in its size category. The average income is much greater for Whites than for Blacks. Whites still own most of everything.<br /><br />&nbsp; I came to Selma and Dallas County with the hope and belief that Selma, given its history of injustice, would emerge as a worldwide model of justice, equality,&nbsp;and brotherhood. It has not. It is far from it. But hope springs eternal. Maybe it is still not too late. Selma and Dallas County, Lord, Selma and Dallas County!<br /><br />Epilogue – We want to believe that things will get better with time. Time, however, is neutral. Some things get worse over time in spite of herculean efforts. Our challenge is great because it is not enough to get better. Our challenge is to overcome history in order to achieve excellence.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--rdNGiYqLdM/U4YhDd3nYkI/AAAAAAAAAGY/Wfd7_wSBzZ4kRexzpJBE41VQX21HOUMnQCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Hank%2BSanders.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="283" data-original-width="202" height="200" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--rdNGiYqLdM/U4YhDd3nYkI/AAAAAAAAAGY/Wfd7_wSBzZ4kRexzpJBE41VQX21HOUMnQCPcBGAYYCw/s200/Hank%2BSanders.jpg" width="142" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Hank Sanders represents Senate District 23 in the <a href="http://www.legislature.state.al.us/aliswww/default.aspx" target="_blank">Alabama Legislature</a>.Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-76094258901109761712018-08-03T13:00:00.000-05:002018-08-03T13:00:01.188-05:00Libertarianism in one easy lesson&nbsp; It would be hard to imagine a larger deficiency in modern American society than the one we find in the ability of individual citizens to understand their proper relationship with government and each other. Beneath the endless cacophony of varying special-interest groups lies a fundamental misunderstanding of the role we each play in a free society and the role government plays in guaranteeing our place in a free society.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; Immigration, taxation, healthcare, charity and welfare, gun control, free trade, foreign policy, and private property are just a few of the issues that dominate mainstream debate today, and the loudest voices on both the Left and Right clamor for rights that do not exist, for controls that should not be imposed, and for special treatment of their pet projects. Few actually understand the freedom they claim to desire for themselves and others. The moral posturing adopted by the various and many proponents of government intervention in society have little to offer those who wish to live in peace.<br /><br />&nbsp; What moral compass should guide Americans when viewing the issues of the day? Through what prism ought we, as free citizens, view the actions of public officials and concerned interests, and the policies they pursue, allegedly for our benefit? The answer to that question is simple: libertarianism.<br /><br />&nbsp; Libertarianism has a long political pedigree, dating back centuries. From the radical Levellers of the 17th century and the “Round Heads” of the English Civil War (who sought to limit the powers of the King through Parliament) was born the Whigs, and their revolutionary Lockean proclamations regarding fundamental rights and the origin of private property. From the Whigs were born the Liberals, opponents of the Tories and their stultifying conservatism. Albeit imperfectly, the Liberals fought against monopolies (which were the result of government-imposed prohibitions against competition, not the free market); the comingling of church and state and its inevitable by-product, religious discrimination; interference with commerce; and slavery. And from the Liberal tradition grew modern libertarianism.<br /><br />&nbsp; Put simply, libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds that all people, as the Declaration of Independence promises, are endowed by their creator with certain “inalienable rights,” including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;” that we are all equal before the law, and that government and law exist for no other purpose than to protect us from those who would deny or infringe on our ability to make the most of ourselves in whatever way we choose – provided we respect the equal right of others to do the same.<br /><br />&nbsp; At the root of libertarian morality is the concept of self-ownership and its corollary, private property. If we are each, as individuals, the rightful captains of our own destiny, it is essential that force and coercion be abolished from society to the greatest possible and practical extent. As a means to social harmony, force can only be legitimate if it is employed to defend the rights of society’s individual members against an aggressor.<br /><br />&nbsp; Properly understood, force is only morally acceptable if it used in self-defense; we libertarians reject the initiation of force. “Live and let live,” in other words. Respectively, we may each arrive at this destination from any number of varying origins – constitutionalism, objectivism, religion, natural rights, “pragmatic sanction,” the Golden Rule, etc. – but the goal is peaceful coexistence.<br /><br />&nbsp; As Ayn Rand observed, the type of government we choose will depend on our ethical imperative. If we truly believe that individuals are free and autonomous beings, with rights that must be respected by our fellows and a just claim to the fruits of our labor, government must be instituted for no other reason than “to secure these rights” – it must only provide the laws necessary to protect us from those who would deny or infringe our rights. And it must refrain from any such actions itself!<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BsEwiF6vTHA/W14ENuO2YuI/AAAAAAAAArQ/Hp5Zlj5eifsKbW2b_PExun8hnBD9V0OegCLcBGAs/s1600/McPherson-2018-150x150.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="150" data-original-width="150" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BsEwiF6vTHA/W14ENuO2YuI/AAAAAAAAArQ/Hp5Zlj5eifsKbW2b_PExun8hnBD9V0OegCLcBGAs/s1600/McPherson-2018-150x150.jpg" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Scott McPherson is a policy adviser at <a href="http://www.fff.org/" target="_blank">The Future of Freedom Foundation</a>, and author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B01431LQGI/futuoffreefou-20" target="_blank">Freedom and Security: The Second Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms</a>. An advocate of the <a href="https://www.fsp.org/" target="_blank">Free State Project</a>, he lives in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by The Future of Freedom Foundation.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-84597637557157091552018-08-02T13:00:00.000-05:002018-08-02T13:00:22.302-05:00White nationalists who shouted “Russia is our friend” weren’t just whistling Dixie&nbsp; The same day President Trump appeared to side with Vladimir Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies, the Department of Justice unsealed a criminal complaint accusing a woman named Maria Butina of “acting as an agent of a foreign government” — Russia.<br /><br />&nbsp; Rubbing shoulders with right-wing figures at the National Prayer Breakfast, Butina allegedly sought to <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1080766/download" target="_blank">“establish a back-channel of communication”</a> with American politicians who share Russia’s anti-LGBT stance.<br /><br />&nbsp; She’s not the only one who saw an opportunity. The most recent National Prayer Breakfast this year was attended by more than 50 Russians.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; “It turns out that anti-L.G.B.T. politics are an effective tool in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/opinion/maria-butina-putin-infiltration.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&amp;action=click&amp;contentCollection=opinion&amp;region=rank&amp;module=package&amp;version=highlights&amp;contentPlacement=2&amp;pgtype=sectionfront" target="_blank">mobilizing religious nationalists</a> everywhere,” wrote Katherine Stewart in an op-ed for The New York Times.<br /><br />&nbsp; And not just religious nationalists.<br /><br />&nbsp; Take white nationalist Richard Spencer, or longtime Klan leader David Duke, for example. According to Anton Shekhovtsov, author of Russia and the Western Far Right: Tango Noir, “both have long-standing relations with their Russian fascist counterparts.”<br /><br />&nbsp; Certainly, both have ties to Alexander Dugin, the former adviser to Russia’s foreign intelligence chief, an ultranationalist who hailed the election of Trump.<br /><br />&nbsp; As Tom Porter recounted in a piece for Newsweek after the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville last summer, Duke and Dugin were photographed together on at least one occasion and are linked by neo-Nazi Preston Wigginton, who reportedly sublets Duke’s apartment in Moscow.<br /><br />&nbsp; Dugin has also contributed to AltRight.com, Richard Spencer’s website, as well as Radix Journal, Spencer’s online journal — easy to do since Spencer’s ex-wife is also Dugin’s translator. He has additional ties to anti-government conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and white nationalist leader Matthew Heimbach.<br /><br />&nbsp; The love affair between Russian and American extremists isn’t limited to individual relationships. Whole cultural exchanges are taking place between white nationalists in both countries, borne along by a current of swastikas, the Nazi “black sun,” and references to “88” (code for Heil Hitler) or “14” (code for the 14-word white supremacist mantra).<br /><br />&nbsp; Bryan Schatz found all of these in spades when he began investigating the proliferation of neo-Nazi-affiliated mixed martial arts outfits on both sides of the Atlantic. In a piece for Mother Jones, Schatz traced the way American white nationalists “generally seem to worship” White Rex, a Russian clothing company and former fight promoter — which has in turn borrowed from American racism with events like its “Birth of a Nation” fight night.<br /><br />&nbsp; The bonds between Trump-adoring American extremists and Russia are cultural, political and, apparently, strong.<br /><br />&nbsp; It’s increasingly clear that the white nationalists who shouted “Russia is our friend” in Charlottesville last summer weren’t just whistling Dixie.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by the <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/" target="_blank">Southern Poverty Law Center</a>, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-28801362680865509152018-08-01T13:00:00.000-05:002018-08-01T13:00:05.883-05:00Steve Flowers: Inside the Statehouse – More analysis of the GOP runoff&nbsp; Currently, congressmen/women win reelection at a 98 percent rate. The communist politburo does not have that high of a reelection percentage. Maybe we have more in common with the Russians than Washington CNN reporters think.<br /><br />&nbsp; It is hard to get beat as an incumbent congressman. Martha Roby tried, but even though she was the most vulnerable Republican incumbent congressperson in the country, she shellacked a former Montgomery mayor, one-term congressman, and doggone good country one-on-one politician - Bobby Bright. She beat him like a rented mule, 68-32.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; Two years ago, she blatantly said she was not going to vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, for president. Trump and the Republican Party are very popular in the 2nd Congressional District. It is one of the most conservative and GOP-based districts in the nation. Currently, Trump’s approval rating among GOP voters in the second district is 90 percent.<br /><br />&nbsp; Well, young Ms. Roby became an instant pariah in her district. She would have lost overwhelmingly had the 2016 GOP Primary not just been over. There was an unprecedented, record-breaking, number of write-in votes against her in the November 2016 General Election.<br /><br />&nbsp; It was assumed that whoever ran against her in this year’s GOP Primary would beat her. She was scorned and mocked in her district and even uninvited to GOP events. Indeed, four viable men ran against her in the GOP Primary. She outspent them four-to-one and still only got 39 percent to Bright’s 27 percent.&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp; She pulled it out in the runoff for two reasons. Donald Trump endorsed her, which was manna from heaven. Trump is very popular in Southeast Alabama, and the reason Roby was in the doghouse anyway was because she said she was not going to vote for Trump. If Trump forgave her, then folks in Andalusia figured they would too.&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp; However, the big reason she won was because of the incumbency rule mentioned earlier. Washington special interest money stays with incumbents. The Washington money stuck with her like glue. She outspent Bright 9-to-1. It is impossible to overcome that kind of financial advantage.&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp; She learned her lesson. Bet you won’t see her involved in somebody else’s race again. It was an arrogant and unnecessary faux pas. First of all, nobody cares who a three-term, back-bench congressperson is going to vote for as president. Folks in a Republican district assume that you are going to vote for a fellow Republican.&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp; The Agriculture Commissioner race ended about as expected in the runoff. Rick Pate led Gerald Dial 40-to-30 in the first primary. Pate beat Dial 57-to-43 in the runoff.<br /><br />&nbsp; Pate is a lifetime farmer and longtime Farmers Federation leader. The Alfa endorsement was critical in this race. They loyally supported him. Pate won even in the metropolitan counties. Alabamians inexplicably have a way of picking the farmer in this race.<br /><br />&nbsp; The turnout in the GOP runoff was abysmal. It was around 12 percent statewide. However, in counties where there were local races, it was between 25-35 percent. All politics is local. Walker Country had 25 percent turnout because they had a tough sheriff race. Marion had three local runoff races and voted at 28 percent. Marshall County had two local candidates running statewide, Will Ainsworth and Steve Marshall. They voted 19 percent.<br /><br />&nbsp; In Alabama political history, Barbour County has been known as the Home of Governors, and indeed, six Alabama governors have called Barbour County home. In the 80s and 90s, Cullman County claimed two governors, Guy Hunt and Jim Folsom, Jr. Of course, little Jim’s daddy, Big Jim, was governor in the 1940s and 50s. That gave Cullman County three governors. Tuscaloosa has had three governors. They should rightfully claim Lurleen Wallace, who was born and raised in Northport. Only a few years ago, Tuscaloosa had the unique advantage of claiming the governor, Robert Bentley, and Alabama’s Senior Senator and most powerful politico, Richard Shelby, at the same time.<br /><br />&nbsp; However, the results of the Republican Primary have propelled Marshall County into the limelight. Beginning with the next quadrennium, Marshall County will more than likely lay claim to both Lt. Governor Will Ainsworth and Attorney General Steve Marshall.<br /><br />&nbsp; For generations, the legendary Beat 14 in Elmore County was the Bellweather box in the state for predicting the governor’s race and mirroring the results statewide. In recent years their clairvoyance has diminished. There is a new rival to Beat 14 in Elmore County, Patsburg in Crenshaw County has been getting it right for a while now. In the July 17 runoff, Patsburg got every race correct. As Patsburg goes, so goes the state.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ya5UTCQCdCk/WXaSfFzELNI/AAAAAAAAAjE/5g1C4c4JZt4hfzX9eDkdgEoWDhMBXBgeACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/steve-flowers-about-300x300.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="300" height="200" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ya5UTCQCdCk/WXaSfFzELNI/AAAAAAAAAjE/5g1C4c4JZt4hfzX9eDkdgEoWDhMBXBgeACPcBGAYYCw/s200/steve-flowers-about-300x300.jpeg" width="200" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at <a href="http://www.steveflowers.us/" target="_blank">http://www.steveflowers.us/</a>. He can also be found on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/SteveFlowersInsideTheStatehouse" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveFlowersAL" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-50883376296503563732018-07-31T13:00:00.000-05:002018-07-31T13:00:15.170-05:00What’s the ‘true threat’ to American journalism and democracy?&nbsp; Threats to the survival of a free press seem much in the air these days, from the near-daily online insults hurled from the White House podium to the lunatic who opened fire on an innocent group of news people in Annapolis, Md., on June 28.<br /><br />&nbsp; But the greatest danger facing our shared freedom of the press and to journalists’ role in our democracy is not so much either of those factors, as important and tragic as both are.<br /><br />&nbsp; Perhaps the greatest — and just as immediate — threat is the ongoing decline in the sheer numbers of those involved in the operating and staffing of newsrooms, for now, felt most strongly in the “print” sector.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; Here’s the most recent example: The owner of The New York Daily News — for decades the blue collar, saucy and salty tabloid voice of one of the planet’s largest cities — just days ago cut already weakened newsroom numbers from less than 100 to a reported 45 or so.<br /><br />&nbsp; The paper’s Editor Jim Rich, and Managing Editor Kristen Lee, were bounced as part the mass layoff by an out of town entity that now owns the paper, Tronc — responsible for similarly slashing staffs in other newsrooms it controls, from Chicago to Los Angeles.<br /><br />&nbsp; No doubt the those who bark “fake news” on command will clap their hands over the news. But as Rich so eloquently wrote hours before the Tronc travesty: “If you hate democracy and think local government should operate in the dark, then today is a good day for you.”<br /><br />&nbsp; Recently, writer Ross Barkam of The Guardian noted that the U.S. Labor Department reports that since 2001, more than one-half of all jobs in the news industry have disappeared, a decline from 411,800 to 173,709.<br /><br />&nbsp; For newspapers in particular, the situation is even more grim: a 2018 industry survey showed news department staffing nationwide is about 25,000 — for the first time less than the 27,000 employed in perennially understaffed local TV news operations. In the 1990s, surveys put those newsroom numbers at around 65,000.<br /><br />&nbsp; Yes, there is hope that online news operations will grow in size, scope, numbers, and outgrow the trivial fascinations that grab eyeballs if not intellects. But how long will that take? Will it ever happen?<br /><br />&nbsp; It’s difficult to sustain a nation’s commitment to a “free press” if there’s little-to-no press around to operate freely and demonstrate its worth to an ever-skeptical public.<br /><br />&nbsp; Do not fool yourself that our freedom of the press — and other freedoms of the First Amendment — are invulnerable. A tumble in the once virtually guaranteed revenue and the web disruption of previously limited access to news trashed in little more than a decade the economic model and news consumption habits of a century and more.<br /><br />&nbsp; Combine a court decision (perhaps in the area of public figures and libel) with the White House’s moves on trade (raising the cost of newsprint) and mega-media mergers approved by the government and “poof” — the vibrant, multifaceted news media envisioned by the nation’s founders as a “watchdog” on government turns into a lapdog with neither bark nor bite.<br /><br />&nbsp; Yes, The New York Daily News newsroom cuts do not automatically mean it cannot replicate a 2017 Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation — with nonprofit partner ProPublica — of wrongs in the city’s eviction laws. But effectively tracking down evildoers and keeping a watchful eye in a city of 8.5 million with a staff of about 40 will be nearly impossible, even with the help of Superman —and yes, the Daily News was the model for the comic book’s “Daily Planet” where alter-ego, mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent found a home.<br /><br />&nbsp; We need not be mild-mannered or helpless in the face of the all too real challenges facing our watchdogs. But we do have to join in the fight to sustain a strong and free press — which, to acknowledge the factual critics of the press we have now, does not mean accepting shallow or inaccurate reporting, or opinionated talk as a substitute for journalism that matters.<br /><br />&nbsp; In fact, there’s plenty of the latter around, but it gets caught up in the bluster and brimstone of those who see political benefit in the now meaningless blurts about “fake news” and such.<br /><br />&nbsp; Focus on finding and supporting good journalism — which no doubt will at times tell you things you don’t want to hear, regardless of your political views — and ignore the rest.<br /><br />&nbsp; If enough of us do that, we too “can save the day” for a free press — and help preserve democracy as well.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gr_LNxyakNw/VxrbgCfhE9I/AAAAAAAAAWc/RfwTHpi3dqc_e-Wl8VS3CWC_PtTKyb95QCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Gene%2BPolicinski.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="938" data-original-width="667" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gr_LNxyakNw/VxrbgCfhE9I/AAAAAAAAAWc/RfwTHpi3dqc_e-Wl8VS3CWC_PtTKyb95QCPcBGAYYCw/s200/Gene%2BPolicinski.jpg" width="141" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Gene Policinski is president and chief operating officer of the <a href="https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/" target="_blank">Freedom Forum Institute</a>. He can be reached at <a href="mailto:gpolicinski@freedomforum.org" target="_blank">gpolicinski[at]freedomforum.org</a>, or follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/genefac" target="_blank">@genefac</a>.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by the Freedom Forum Institute.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-2432245805828013772018-07-30T13:00:00.000-05:002018-07-30T13:00:11.343-05:00Appeals court reinstates lawsuit challenging Alabama’s wage-hike ban&nbsp; An appeals court last week reversed a judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit that challenges a state law which blocks Alabama cities from raising the minimum wage.<br /><br />&nbsp; The reversal allows the plaintiffs to resume their argument in court that the law discriminates against black, low-wage workers by preserving the racial pay gap.<br /><br />&nbsp; Birmingham, a predominantly black city, attempted in 2016 to raise its minimum wage to $10.10 an hour from the federal minimum of $7.25 that is observed by the state. In response, the Alabama Legislature quickly moved to pass a law banning cities from raising the minimum wage above the federal level.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; “When Alabama’s majority-white Legislature passed a law that would reverse a majority-black municipality’s decision to increase its minimum wage, the intent was clear: to preserve the state’s long-standing racial wage gap in which African-American, low-wage workers earn up to 27 percent less than their white counterparts,” said Sam Brooke, deputy legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center. “The discriminatory intent cannot be denied.”<br /><br />&nbsp; After the law banning the wage hike was passed, the Alabama National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Greater Birmingham Ministries sued the state in 2016 on behalf of workers in Birmingham, claiming that the law, HB 174, violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.<br /><br />&nbsp; The suit argued that the law transferred control over minimum wages from Birmingham’s officials – who were elected by the city’s majority black electorate – to state officials, who were elected by a majority white electorate.<br /><br />&nbsp; The SPLC and the Partnership for Working Families filed a <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/filed_-_pwf-splc_amicus_brief.pdf" target="_blank">friend-of-the-court brief</a> last year in support of the lawsuit. The brief outlined the historical and ongoing role that race played in Alabama’s decision to block Birmingham’s minimum wage ordinance by passing the law.<br /><br />&nbsp; Last year, U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs could not link the state’s motivations with race, as the lawsuit claimed. The groups appealed.<br /><br />&nbsp; The Eleventh Circuit Court on Wednesday reversed the judge’s dismissal, allowing Birmingham workers to have their day in court.<br /><br />&nbsp; The SPLC and the Partnership for Working Families said in a joint statement last week that the reversal will allow the plaintiffs to show that their state’s ban on minimum wage increases in predominantly black and brown cities is part of a long, unconstitutional history of racial discrimination.<br /><br />&nbsp; “That disparity is hard to ignore when you see the state going to great lengths to block cities like Birmingham from raising the minimum wage,” said Miya Saika Chen, an attorney for the Partnership for Working Families.<br /><br />&nbsp; In the joint statement, the SPLC and the Partnership for Working Families said this racial dynamic plays out across the country: Cities of color run into state interference from predominantly white legislatures when they try to enact policies that address the economic obstacles faced by communities of color.<br /><br />&nbsp; “Now is the time for us to join together across racial differences and ensure that working people, whether white, black or brown, can provide for their families and prosper,” the joint statement said. “We need to stand up to wealthy special interests and an old guard that has always rigged the rules in its favor. This appeals court decision gives low-wage workers, civil rights advocates, and community leaders a chance to be heard in our justice system.”<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by the <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/" target="_blank">Southern Poverty Law Center</a>, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-51320466471657709332018-07-29T13:00:00.000-05:002018-07-29T13:00:09.551-05:00Omnipotent government, not Trump, is the problem&nbsp; Many of the people who are critics of President Trump don’t realize that they themselves are partly responsible for much of what Trump is doing. That’s because over the years they have supported the assumption of dictatorial powers by the president. In doing so, they always assumed that their favorite ideal candidate would end up being the one wielding and exercising such powers. They assumed the risk that someone like Trump would end up being the one doing so.<br /><br />&nbsp; The United States was founded as a limited-government republic. What that means was that the charter that brought the federal government into existence strictly limited the powers of the president and the other branches of the government. The idea was that no one should be trusted with dictatorial powers, not even people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; That notion of limited government has been jettisoned in modern times. The president now wields powers that any dictator would relish.<br /><br />&nbsp; Consider Trump’s imposition of tariffs and his initiation of trade wars against various nations. He’s calling the shots. He decides, in a willy-nilly, arbitrary manner, how much in tariffs to impose against any nation in the world. If that nation retaliates, Trump wields the power to up the ante and impose even more tariffs. Or if another nation gives him what he wants, Trump can simply reduce or even eliminate the tariffs on that particular nation.<br /><br />&nbsp; In other words, he doesn’t have to go to Congress for approval on any of this. He himself decides. That is classic dictatorial power.<br /><br />&nbsp; The same applies to economic sanctions. Trump wields the omnipotent power to impose them on anyone or any regime in the world. Neither the federal courts nor Congress dares to interfere, and if they did, Trump and his national-security establishment would ignore them.<br /><br />&nbsp; Trump has now threatened Iran with war. If he wants to initiate such a war, all he has to do is just do it. He’s got the entire U.S. military and the CIA at his disposal. They will follow whatever orders he issues. If Trump says: Attack and invade North Korea, they will do it. Iran? They will do it. Syria? They will do it. Uruguay? They will do it.<br /><br />&nbsp; Legally, under the Constitution, Trump is required to secure a congressional declaration of war before he can initiate a war. But no president has complied with that part of the Constitution since World War II, and Trump isn’t about to become the first. He wields the total, dictatorial power to declare and wage war, and he isn’t about to give that up.<br /><br />&nbsp; Along with his national-security establishment, Trump wields the power to kill anyone in the world, including American citizens. All they have to do so is say that the victim is a terrorist who poses a threat to “national security.” This particular power is omnipotent. No federal court will review it or second-guess it. Congress is not going to interfere, and even if tried, Trump and any other president would ignore the interference.<br /><br />&nbsp; The same power applies with respect to torture and indefinite detention. Trump, the military, and the CIA wield the omnipotent power to arrest people, including Americans, incarcerate them indefinitely, and torture them. All they have to do is label the victim a terrorist who poses a threat to “national security.” The federal courts and Congress are not going to interfere, and the president, the Pentagon, and the CIA would pay them no mind if they did.<br /><br />&nbsp; The power to kill, torture, and indefinitely incarcerate people without trial is the ultimate in dictatorial power. Trump wields it. Anyone elected president wields such power.<br /><br />&nbsp; That’s not the way things were meant to be. Limited government doesn’t mean that dictatorial power is being exercised gently, prudently, or wisely. It means that the president and the rest of the government do not even possess dictatorial powers, much less exercise them.<br /><br />&nbsp; Think of it this way: Assume that your worst enemy or the worst possible person you can imagine is going to be president. Then ask yourself whether you want to vest dictatorial power in that person.<br /><br />&nbsp; That’s what modern-day Americans did not do. In abandoning the principles of limited government, they hoped and assumed that their favorite candidate would be the one wielding the dictatorial powers as president.<br /><br />&nbsp; And then the worst happened from everyone’s perspective: Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump. Everyone’s nightmare on one side or the other. Either Clinton would be wielding the dictatorial powers or Trump would. Either way, the freedom and well-being of the American people were going to suffer.<br /><br />&nbsp; The solution? No, the solution is not to get rid of Trump and replace him with Hillary or anyone else. The solution is the return to founding principles, among which is the concept of a limited-government republic. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, put it well: “In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sA_kU7BnnQs/VFF7pBLtgJI/AAAAAAAAAIM/oeiHuX9vTWgm21S56OP9YyBDt_rLEoOVACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/hornberger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="158" data-original-width="179" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sA_kU7BnnQs/VFF7pBLtgJI/AAAAAAAAAIM/oeiHuX9vTWgm21S56OP9YyBDt_rLEoOVACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/hornberger.jpg" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of <a href="http://www.fff.org/" target="_blank">The Future of Freedom Foundation</a>.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by The Future of Freedom Foundation.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-63116965452423690532018-07-28T13:00:00.000-05:002018-07-28T13:00:14.059-05:00Hank Sanders: Senate Sketches #1624 - Minoring in the major and majoring in the minor&nbsp; My cell phone rang. The caller said: “Senator Sanders, the cops have surrounded your wife near Selma Avenue and Broad Street. It was about nine cops. When I drove by she hollered, ‘Call my husband.’ So I am calling you.”<br /><br />&nbsp; I dropped everything and dashed to Selma Avenue and Broad Street. This was the evening of Monday, July 16, 2018, the day before the Democratic Primary Runoff Election for Probate Judge of Dallas County.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; A number of police officers and others were present, but Faya was not there. They had taken her to the Selma City Jail. I found my 11-year-old granddaughter by herself crying. One woman told me how Faya had repeatedly asked the officers to let her call someone to come get her granddaughter. The officers refused each time. I was furious that the police caused an 11-year-old child to be left on the streets by herself.&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp; I think Faya’s car was still running. I tried to get the car to take it to my office. The police officers stopped me. They insisted on having the car towed and claimed it was evidence. I objected, but they had it towed anyway. It was towed to the towing company’s lot. I had to pay $150 for one of my daughters to pick up the car a half hour later. This towing was clearly not about evidence.<br /><br />&nbsp; I found a young woman to take care of my grandchild. Then I dashed to the Selma Police Station. Some women followed me there. I sensed their protective presence. When I walked into the booking area of the police department, I saw a big Switzer campaign sign. Women and children were already present. They had followed Faya to the police station to provide protection. I repeatedly asked to see Faya. I explained that I was her attorney as well as her husband. She had a right to see me. I was still denied permission to see her. They set a $2,000 cash bond for her. Twice I was asked by police officers if I was going to bail out Faya. I responded: “I don’t know. You will not allow me to meet with her.”<br /><br />&nbsp; After some time, Faya appeared briefly in an open area. The jail bars were between us. The police officials and citizens were all standing right there. She told me to go to Tabernacle Baptist Church to find the church leaders who witnessed that the campaign sign was on public property. Selma has an ordinance prohibiting campaign signs on public property and rights of way. One of the church deacons had thanked her for removing the sign.<br /><br />&nbsp; I left immediately for Tabernacle Baptist Church. Tabernacle was the first church to allow a mass meeting to be held on its premises during the 1960s Voting Rights Movement when the danger was great. No one was at the church, so I returned to the Selma Police Station. Faya had been transferred to the Dallas County Jail about seven or so miles away. I left for the Dallas County Jail.&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp; I knew that Faya had strongly objected to city workers leaving the campaign signs of White candidates on public rights of way while snatching up campaign signs of Black candidates. I knew that she had gone to Selma City Hall to protest these unfair practices. She insisted that all signs on public rights of way should be taken up or none taken up. She also said that if they did not treat candidates’ signs the same way, she would take the other campaign signs off the public rights of way as Selma laws require. I heard her say on her radio program, Faya’s Fire, that the Switzer signs that had been taken from public rights of way could be picked up at the radio station.<br /><br />&nbsp; At the Dallas County Jail, I was able to talk with Faya attorney-to-client as well as husband-to-wife. She refused to be bailed out of jail. She felt very strongly about the following: being falsely arrested; being physically abused with handcuffs too tight behind her back; being forced to leave her 11-year-old granddaughter alone on the sidewalk; having her car towed for no good reason; having to pay $150 to get her car; and having a $2,000 cash bail bond. She would just stay in jail. I supported her decision.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp; I decided to post these developments on Facebook. Over time I added eight updates. I shared the facts as best I could. I urged my Facebook friends to share my posts and strongly urge citizens in Dallas County to vote. Eventually my posts were shared by more than a thousand individuals. I returned to the Dallas County Jail that night to see Faya and again the next morning.<br /><br />&nbsp; I filled in for Faya as best I could. I went to court for her and hosted her radio program the next morning. It was on the internet as well as the radio. I don’t know all I said on the program. I do know that I shared how I have been involved in political races for at least 45 years. During that time, tens of thousands of signs of hundreds of political candidates have been removed. That includes thousands of my signs. Not a single person that I know has ever been arrested because of removal of political signs. Here we are in Selma – the birthplace of the 1965 Voting Rights Act – and a 73-year-old mother, grandmother, wife, and attorney is falsely charged with shoplifting political signs that were on public rights of way. I also shared how she had received death threats and the Selma Police had not done anything about it. This is so outrageous.<br /><br />&nbsp; On Tuesday evening, I was informed of the inflammatory headlines in the Selma Times Journal newspaper. I immediately called a press conference for 10:30 a.m. Wednesday in Montgomery. The press conference had good media attendance and a very strong presence of Faya’s supporters. The press conference was also live streamed.<br /><br />&nbsp; That night I learned that African American voters had come out in numbers virtually equal to those in primary. This is almost unheard of. It is so hard to get voters, especially African American voters, to return for a runoff. As a result, for the first time in the 200-year history of Dallas County, an African American will be Probate Judge in Selma, Dallas County, Alabama.<br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp; The requirement of a $2,000 cash bond was waived by Selma officials on Wednesday after the election was over. Faya signed herself out of jail Wednesday afternoon. However, the false charges of shoplifting campaign signs and attempting to elude police officers are still pending. These are serious charges. I will have much more to say about these injustices. We will deal with these as they come.<br /><br />&nbsp; I have been amazed at the powerful responses to Faya’s arrest and jailing. I have received too many communications to begin to name. They have come from Selma and Dallas County and Alabama. They have come from all across the country. So many were outraged and offered to come to Selma and/or to help as needed. I am thankful for how the many Dallas County voters responded. Faya is sorry she could not vote after working so hard to get others to vote.<br /><br />Epilogue – It’s amazing how some of our law enforcement can forcefully pursue the minor, such as campaign signs, while turning a blind eye to the major, such as death threats. It’s majoring in the minor and minoring in the major at its worse.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--rdNGiYqLdM/U4YhDd3nYkI/AAAAAAAAAGY/Wfd7_wSBzZ4kRexzpJBE41VQX21HOUMnQCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Hank%2BSanders.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="283" data-original-width="202" height="200" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--rdNGiYqLdM/U4YhDd3nYkI/AAAAAAAAAGY/Wfd7_wSBzZ4kRexzpJBE41VQX21HOUMnQCPcBGAYYCw/s200/Hank%2BSanders.jpg" width="142" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Hank Sanders represents Senate District 23 in the <a href="http://www.legislature.state.al.us/aliswww/default.aspx" target="_blank">Alabama Legislature</a>.Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-38537322811512815762018-07-27T13:00:00.000-05:002018-07-27T13:00:01.310-05:00Learning from President Trump: Words matter&nbsp; “I don’t see any reason why it would be”.<br /><br />&nbsp; Those words, voiced by President Donald Trump when asked whether he believed it was true that Russia interfered with the 2016 election, set off a media firestorm.<br /><br />&nbsp; Trump, of course, is used to media criticism, but this time was different. Joining the normal critics were a multitude of Fox News hosts including Neil Cavuto, Bret Baier, Brit Hume, Dana Perino, and even Brian Kilmeade of the oft-lauded by Trump Fox and Friends.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; The morning after Trump’s press conference with President Vladimir Putin, Kilmeade spoke in second-person “you” language and pleaded for President Trump to clarify his statement and his belief in our intelligence agencies over Russians who, as Kilmeade said, “hate democracy”.<br /><br />&nbsp; To his credit, Trump – who had previously agreed that Russian meddling existed – corrected his statement within twenty-four hours.<br /><br />&nbsp; Regardless of whether his clarification was believable or timely, this episode reminds us that in politics and government – and in everyday life – words matter.<br /><br />&nbsp; The 19th Century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche recognized the power of words. Nietzsche wrote, “All I need is a sheet of paper, and something to write with, and then I can turn the world upside down”.<br /><br />&nbsp; Nietzsche’s statement wasn’t merely hypothetical. His declaration that “God is dead” shattered worldviews across western civilization into pieces that PureFlix (the movie company behind God’s Not Dead and its sequels) is still trying to pick up.<br /><br />&nbsp; Even so, it seems that many have forgotten the power of words and have embraced the idea that simply being heard, regardless of content, is of utmost importance.<br /><br />&nbsp; In NBC’s hit show The Office, Michael Scott tells viewers, “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way”. I think a lot of us are more like Michael Scott than we’d like to admit.<br /><br />&nbsp; We might do well to envision more intentional dialogue from ourselves and from our elected officials, especially our state and local representatives.<br /><br />&nbsp; In an environment where soundbites are everything, Trump’s statements in Helsinki and the backlash that ensued ought to prompt Alabama officials and candidates to rethink any “wing it” sympathies they may have towards public statements, press conferences, or tweets.<br /><br />&nbsp; This is even more important in the post-primary period of our election cycle.<br /><br />&nbsp; Now that the nominees are chosen, we must remind each of their responsibility as leaders to use words, strategies, and express differences in a way that is less divisive and more unifying, less bombastic and more genuine. Our officials and candidates should think twice before resorting to name-calling or vilifying their opponents, as doing so endorses that type of behavior and lowers the standard of Alabamians for those who represent them.<br /><br />&nbsp; We should also expect, now that the in-fighting of our primary process is over, nominees to run thoughtful campaigns where issues, not personalities, are articulately debated.<br /><br />&nbsp; Candidates and regular Alabamians alike must remember that words yield tremendous power. Therefore, as Roald Dahl, the author of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the BFG, and Matilda, suggests, “Don’t gobblefunk around with words”.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eELOFn3DP2g/WoCbjq7Uv7I/AAAAAAAAAnU/25phK76Ez-sUEYvwzrOZq2O5Nk3dGudogCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Staff-Photos-for-website6-317x444.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="444" data-original-width="317" height="200" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eELOFn3DP2g/WoCbjq7Uv7I/AAAAAAAAAnU/25phK76Ez-sUEYvwzrOZq2O5Nk3dGudogCPcBGAYYCw/s200/Staff-Photos-for-website6-317x444.jpg" width="142" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Originally from Memphis, Parker Snider graduated from Samford University with an honors degree in Political Science in May 2017. Before graduation, Parker interned with the <a href="http://www.alabamapolicy.org/" target="_blank">Alabama Policy Institute</a>, the United States House of Representatives, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. After graduation and until returning to API as Public Relations Manager, Parker worked full-time for multiple statewide senatorial campaigns.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by the Alabama Policy Institute.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-51540450601878689492018-07-26T13:00:00.000-05:002018-07-26T13:00:13.055-05:00There is no summer vacation for parents in the "gig" economy&nbsp; Let the record reflect that I began writing this from beneath my wiggling three-year-old. I had barely cracked open my laptop when he did a backbend across my legs and slid upside-down onto the floor, with a smile so wide I could see the ridges on the roof of his mouth. One of his feet hit my chest and the other hit my laptop, nearly toppling it to the ground. He giggled, and I nearly had a heart attack. My computer is how I keep a roof over our heads, and I can’t afford to replace it.<br /><br />&nbsp; Welcome to summer break.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; I’m a low-income single mom with two kids, and summer break feels like a giant blurry question mark. I cannot take time off from work. We don’t have any vacation plans. I cannot afford to hire a summer babysitter or send my kids to a string of various camps. While I considered more creative options, like kid-swapping with friends, the logistics—work schedules, child temperaments, and distances between homes—became too complicated to figure out. And while I’m all for the concept of free-range kids, this week it’s 108 degrees. That’s about ten degrees hotter than the National Institute of Health thinks humans can withstand before their bodies start shutting down, which means sending the kids outside to play with sidewalk chalk and roll down hills all day is… not a thing.<br /><br />&nbsp; As a writer, I only get paid when I produce something, which is hard to do with a three-year-old in my lap. So, since earning money must continue through the summer, my entire work plan is to write while my children are sleeping, lean into my coffee habit, and beg babysitting hours from my parents—a privilege compared to those who don’t have relatives able or willing to help.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">&nbsp;*&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;*&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;*</div><br />&nbsp; Accessing and affording child care is difficult for everyone all year, not just in the summer. For those like me who are living on a single income, the cost of child care cuts deep into our pocketbooks and chips away at our quality of life. To afford child care often means forgoing something else—reliable transportation, household goods, or even food. Today, the average cost of child care for a single child in the United States is approximately $9,000 per year, which is more than one-third of my income.<br /><br />&nbsp; In fact, the cost of child care ranks near the top of a recent survey that found American women are choosing to have fewer children, or forgo having them entirely—which could help to explain why the childbirth rate has fallen to a 30-year low. In an article about the declining U.S. birth rate, journalist Amy Westervelt writes, “for all its pro-family rhetoric, the U.S. is a remarkably harsh place for families, and particularly for mothers.” It’s also especially rough for contracted laborers—a group projected to surpass 50 percent of the American workforce over the next decade–who sacrifice income each time they aren’t able to take a job. “That gig economy you keep hearing so much about, with its flexible schedule and independence?” writes Westervelt. “Yeah, it sucks for mothers… I can tell you exactly how great and balanced it felt to go back to work two hours after giving birth.”<br /><br />&nbsp; I went right back to work after both of my births. Less than 48 hours after I had my first child, I was hauling produce on my vegetable farm. Two days after my second child was born, I sat in a business meeting while my milk came in. Now as a freelance writer, most of the time I work 7 days a week writing articles, editing other people’s articles, pitching stories, and chasing late payments. Sometimes I work on projects for months before seeing a dime.<br /><br />&nbsp; While women are increasingly entering the gig economy (a 2014 study showed that 53 percent of full-time freelancers were women), there are real questions about a burgeoning economy that dangles the carrot of flexibility to busy, multitasking women (many of them mothers), yet still manipulates and mistreats them through pay discrimination and abusive power structures. FastCompany reported that “[female] Uber drivers earn 7 percent less than male drivers, while women freelancers charge lower rates, are more likely to get paid late, and are four and a half times less likely to be earning over $150,000.”<br /><br />&nbsp; And then there’s child care. In 2016 alone, nearly 2 million parents of children age 5 and younger had to quit a job, not take a job, or greatly change their job because of problems with child care.<br /><br />&nbsp; That means many parents—and statistically, mothers more than fathers, due to the archaic, sexist nature of both workplace and household expectations—are forced to cut back hours, miss out on training sessions or job-related experiences, or pass up promotions due to the inability to work more or the need for flexible hours. It’s part of the “motherhood penalty” that stunts career advancement and reduces income, which snowballs considerably over a woman’s lifetime. That penalty reduces the ability of entire households—especially those of single mothers—to accumulate wealth or gain social mobility. In contrast, most working fathers earn more than men without kids.<br /><br />&nbsp; In a conversation on NPR’s 1A about the motherhood wage gap, Ai-jen Poo, executive director of the National Domestic Workers said, “Our culture and our policies have just failed to account for the fact that we have families. … And in the 21st century, that means we actually need child care. We need elder care. We need paid family leave. These are just basic infrastructure assumptions we need to make that we haven’t caught up to.” She notes the emergence of new ideas and solutions, such as Universal Family Care, a proposed family care insurance fund that working Americans could draw upon to afford child care, elder care, and paid family medical leave.<br /><br />&nbsp; While I’ve been able to carve out a successful job as a freelance writer and editor, there are limits to my ability to thrive. As a single parent, jet-setting off to cover breaking news or spending weeks away from home investigating injustice is out of the question, even though I think I’d do it well. I need predictability and routine, stable income, and child care for those long days when I’m on deadline. I find working from home while parenting to be beyond frustrating and near-impossible. I literally cringe at the zillionth snack request of the day and the never-ending chorus of Mom! Mom! Mom! Some days I’ve barely written a sentence by 2 p.m.<br /><br />&nbsp; Still, there is something missing in these conversations about working and motherhood. The statistics cannot measure the bone tiredness of a mother any better than it can articulate the fierce tether that connects me to my children. There is magic in the unmeasurable. There have been actual moments when I have thought: If only someone could see me changing a diaper and typing at the same time. Or the phone calls with editors while balancing a newly-potty-trained toddler on the toilet. How many times I have held a sleeping feverish child while simultaneously racing a deadline. As Rufi Thorpe writes, “It is lovely; it is intolerable; it is both.”<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Debbie Weingarten is a TalkPoverty Fellow, former vegetable farmer, and a freelance writer based out of Tucson, Arizona.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by <a href="http://www.talkpoverty.org/" target="_blank">TalkPoverty.org</a>.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-2499131788442995052018-07-25T13:00:00.000-05:002018-07-25T13:00:09.705-05:00Steve Flowers: Inside the Statehouse – GOP Primary Runoff analysis&nbsp; The storyline of last week’s GOP Primary Runoff was the extremely low turnout. The big surprises to me were the big victories by Steve Marshall for Attorney General and Martha Roby for Congress. Both winning was not a surprise; however, their margins of victory were impressive.<br /><br />&nbsp; Going into the runoff, my guess was that whichever candidate won between Marshall or Troy King, would win by a narrow margin. After all, they had arrived at the runoff in a dead heat of 28 percent each. It is hard to tell how Marshall was able to trounce King by a 62 to 38 margin. The only logical theory would be that he got a sympathy vote from his wife’s death, which occurred during the runoff.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; King filing a suit over Marshall’s campaign fundraising, days before the election, hurt the former Attorney General. It made him look like a loser. Also, it became apparent to me during the campaign that both Marshall and King were polarizing figures. Folks either liked them or they really did not like them.&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp; King obviously made some enemies and detractors during his tenure as Attorney General. As George Wallace used to tell me, “More folks vote against someone than for someone.” King will probably be residing in Buck’s Pocket, politically, for the rest of his life. However, he personally will be a lot better off, especially financially. Just ask Jere Beasley.<br /><br />&nbsp; The Lieutenant Governor’s race ended about like I expected it would. I thought it would be close and it was. It was really the only nip and tuck battle of the night. Will Ainsworth was the big winner of this 2018 political year. He went from being a one-term state legislator from Sand Mountain to Lieutenant Governor of Alabama. At age 37, he is now the youngest among the major players on the state political scene. His narrow but impressive victory supplants Twinkle Cavanaugh as the heir apparent to Governor. This race attracted more money and attention than is usually the case, and for good reason.<br /><br />&nbsp; Our Lieutenant Governor has ascended to Governor more times than not in recent decades. If Kay Ivey is elected Governor, as expected, she will more than likely only serve one four-year term. Will Ainsworth, with his victory last week, has emerged as one of the favorites in the 2022 Governor’s race.<br /><br />&nbsp; How did young Ainsworth pull off his victory? If you are an observer of Alabama politics, you can see the path clearly. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Ainsworth’s calling card from the get-go was that he had family money to spend. Sometimes people have money and tout that as an advantage but, when push comes to shove, they won’t spend it. Ainsworth put his money where his mouth was. He spent it.&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp; Money is the mother’s milk of politics. Ainsworth did a good day's work when he hired whoever ran his campaign. His polling and media were dead-on and outstanding. His polling and media people knew when to go negative and how much to spend, and what ad would work. Thus, the truisms came into play.<br /><br />&nbsp; Number one – money talks.&nbsp; Number two is that more people vote against someone than for someone. Thus, negative advertising works. Thirdly, people in Alabama vote for someone from their neck of the woods, especially in secondary races.&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp; Folks, there are a lot more people and votes in North Alabama than South Alabama. There was a distinct regional delineation that Ainsworth was from the north and Twinkle’s base and home were in South Alabama. North Alabama will beat South Alabama every day of the week and twice on Sunday.<br /><br />&nbsp; Finally, don’t ever run statewide in Alabama without the Alfa endorsement. Make no doubt about it, folks, Alfa is still the big dog in Alabama politics. They ran the table on all the statewide races in last Tuesday’s runoff. The Alfa endorsement was the common thread that appeared in the final results of all the races.<br /><br />&nbsp; Ainsworth’s name, as the endorsed candidate of the Farmers Federation ballot, was without a doubt the difference in the 10,000-vote margin by which he edged Twinkle.<br /><br />&nbsp; In a low turnout race, the Farmers Federation endorsement becomes ever more pronounced and accentuated. Farmers vote. They vote Republican. They vote the Alfa ballot.<br /><br />&nbsp; They not only won every legislative race in the state that they wanted, which is their bread and butter; they also won the statewide offices. So, you might say they got their dinner and dessert. You can probably bet the family farm that property taxes will not be raised in the Heart of Dixie this next quadrennium.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ya5UTCQCdCk/WXaSfFzELNI/AAAAAAAAAjE/5g1C4c4JZt4hfzX9eDkdgEoWDhMBXBgeACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/steve-flowers-about-300x300.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="300" height="200" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ya5UTCQCdCk/WXaSfFzELNI/AAAAAAAAAjE/5g1C4c4JZt4hfzX9eDkdgEoWDhMBXBgeACPcBGAYYCw/s200/steve-flowers-about-300x300.jpeg" width="200" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at <a href="http://www.steveflowers.us/" target="_blank">http://www.steveflowers.us/</a>. He can also be found on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/SteveFlowersInsideTheStatehouse" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveFlowersAL" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-48966888668126003512018-07-24T13:00:00.000-05:002018-07-24T13:00:01.863-05:00Michael Josephson: Kids like to win; adults need to win&nbsp; Whether you’re a sports fan or not, you have to acknowledge the powerful cultural influence that sports have on our culture. The values of millions of participants and spectators are shaped by the values conveyed in sports, including our views of what is permissible and proper in the competitive pursuit of personal goals.<br /><br />&nbsp; Professional sports and even highly competitive intercollegiate sports seem irreversibly addicted to the idea that sports are basically a business and that the only thing that makes sports profitable is winning. And if that means we have to tolerate egocentric self-indulgent showboating or whining, violence or even cheating, so be it. Clearly these attitudes have invaded youth sports as well. Everywhere we see that a lot of adults — both coaches and parents — need to grow up and realize the game is not about either their egos or ambitions.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; The appropriate mission of youth sports is to provide kids with a safe environment in which they can have fun, build character, learn to practice sportsmanship, and develop skills and traits that will help them become responsible citizens and live happy, healthy lives. Striving to win is an important aspect of competition and teaching kids how to compete effectively and honorably is important, but youth sports is not primarily about winning; it’s about trying to win and learning through effort and improvement.<br /><br />&nbsp; Of course winning is fun and kids like to win, but it’s the adults who distort the experience because of their need to win. No matter how much we try, only a few youngsters will move beyond high school sports, and an even tinier percentage will make a living from athletics. But when youth sports are handled appropriately, every participant can build positive life skills and gain lifelong memories from the pursuit of victory with honor.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>Editor's note:</i> This article originally appeared in the Capital City Free Press on November 19, 2011.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y5l4alQCM50/U-9xL-zUkeI/AAAAAAAAAG8/KUqic8XKgGMdzlq3YyzYsX19KxC7L6AXQCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/922378_10151641838115520_2083512129_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="640" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y5l4alQCM50/U-9xL-zUkeI/AAAAAAAAAG8/KUqic8XKgGMdzlq3YyzYsX19KxC7L6AXQCPcBGAYYCw/s200/922378_10151641838115520_2083512129_o.jpg" width="133" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Michael Josephson is one of the nation’s most sought-after and quoted ethicists. Founder and president of Josephson Institute and its <a href="http://www.charactercounts.org/" target="_blank">CHARACTER COUNTS!</a> project, he has conducted programs for more than 100,000 leaders in government, business, education, sports, law enforcement, journalism, law, and the military. Mr. Josephson is also an award-winning radio commentator.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by the Josephson Institute.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-19369888955537963872018-07-23T13:00:00.000-05:002018-07-23T13:00:09.994-05:00What the domestic gag rule means for Title X providers&nbsp; From cuts to teen pregnancy prevention funding to attempts to restrict a woman’s constitutional right to access an abortion, women’s reproductive health is under relentless attack from anti-choice policymakers and the Trump-Pence administration. As this barrage of attacks continues, the fate of a vital safety net hangs in the balance: the federal Title X family planning program.<br /><br />&nbsp; Almost 4,000 Title X health centers serve more than 4 million low-income women and men every year and provide important family planning and related preventive health services such as birth control, sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing, and cancer screenings. Enacted by the Nixon administration in 1970 after garnering broad bipartisan support, Title X has since saved taxpayers billions of dollars and reduced the country’s rate of unintended pregnancies, unplanned births, and abortions. The program is especially important to young women, women of color, and immigrant women, all of whom typically face systemic barriers to accessing care.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; Restrictions to Title X threaten patients and providers; therefore, it is crucial to lift&nbsp;the voices of those who will be most affected and to understand what undermining a successful evidence-based program and limiting women’s access to lifesaving health care would actually mean. The author spoke with four Title X grantees across the country—in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Texas, and Nevada—about the real-world risks of sabotaging this federal program. Their thoughts and experiences are included throughout this column.<br /><br /><b>The domestic gag rule: A blow to women’s health</b><br /><br />&nbsp; On June 1, 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/01/2018-11673/compliance-with-statutory-program-integrity-requirements" target="_blank">domestic gag rule</a> prohibiting Title X grantees from providing a full range of pregnancy-related options, including abortion care. It would do this by, for example, forcing providers to lie to their patients; fundamentally reshaping the network to include anti-choice entities such as fake women’s health centers, also known as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs); and undermining the integrity of the patient-provider relationship.<br /><br />&nbsp; Patricia Fonzi, president and CEO of the Family Health Council of Central Pennsylvania, and Santaisha Garcia, the Title X program director at the council, could not be more passionate about the work they do as a Title X grantee. Both are deeply disappointed by HHS’ proposed rule—especially considering they represent the state from which HHS Secretary Alex Azar hails. Fonzi underscores the urgency of fighting the proposed rule based on the proven success of comprehensive family planning:<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; <i>Family planning is the foundation. It’s one of the top 10 public health achievements of the last 100 years, up there with the polio vaccine and penicillin. If you talked to my colleagues, they would say that things are getting introduced that undermine the very nature of their work.&nbsp;</i><br /><br /><b>Undermining the quality and scope of care</b><br /><br />&nbsp; One of the most troubling aspects of the proposed rule is its prohibition of abortion referrals. The proposed rule claims, “Referrals for abortion are, by definition, directive” and therefore abortion referrals are inconsistent with current Title X statute. According to the proposed rule, only if a patient has already decided she wants abortion care is a physician allowed to furnish her with a list of providers, some but not all of whom may provide abortion. As a result, it becomes incumbent upon the patient to determine which of these referrals offers the service she is requesting.<br /><br />&nbsp; The proposed rule would also eliminate the guarantee of unbiased information and comprehensive options counseling for pregnant women seeking care from Title X providers. Even if a woman or young person explicitly requests information about abortion, the provider can refuse that request.<br /><br />&nbsp; Kami Geoffray, CEO of the Women’s Health and Family Planning Association of Texas (WHFPT), knows all too well what barriers to care can mean for women. As the sole Title X grantee in the state of Texas, WHFPT works with a large and diverse network of providers across the state and has had to overcome a multitude of restrictions enacted by a Republican-controlled state legislature in order to serve its 200,000 clients each year.<br /><br />&nbsp;&nbsp;Geoffray believes that providing a confusing and potentially misleading list to women who need abortion services is just another attempt to erect a barrier to accessing care that ultimately harms women.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; <i>Our clients are low-income, deal with transportation issues, have unstable housing. Many don’t have access to the internet in their home, and many have language barriers. And now you have added one more thing [to block their care]. That does a disservice to the quality of care that our providers strive to offer.&nbsp;</i><br /><br /><b>Redirecting funds to anti-choice organizations</b><br /><br />&nbsp; The proposed rule also emphasizes the need for additional types of family planning methods and services, with particular attention focused on natural family planning providers.<br /><br />&nbsp; Many current providers understand this move for what it is: an attempt to extend the reach of single-method natural family planning providers that do not or will not offer comprehensive care and whose method has been found to be comparatively ineffective. Brenda Thomas, CEO of the Arizona Family Health Partnership—which serves 40,000 clients throughout Arizona every year—explains that her organization and many like it already offer clients wraparound care that includes natural family planning as an option.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; <i>We meet the client where they are. If they want to practice natural family planning, the provider would,&nbsp;of course, be willing to do that. But when you have an entity that provides only one type of service, that means clients aren’t getting comprehensive care.</i><br /><br />&nbsp; Thomas points out that access to complete care is critical for both women who wish to terminate a pregnancy as well as those who wish to continue the pregnancy—making single-method providers’ entry into the Title X network potentially dangerous.<br /><br />&nbsp; This is also part of HHS’ strategy to redirect federal funding to anti-choice organizations such as CPCs. Margaret Holloway, an advanced practice registered nurse at Carson City Health and Human Services in Nevada, has seen firsthand the impact of CPCs on her patient population, half of whom are Hispanic.<br /><br />&nbsp; &nbsp; <i>Crisis pregnancy centers are powerful in our community. We see women after they’ve visited … and they come back with horrible stories. It would be wrong if crisis pregnancy centers ended up getting Title X money, because they are not open to the reality of what women, including women of faith, need.&nbsp;</i><br /><br /><b>Breaching patient-provider confidentiality</b><br /><br />&nbsp; The proposed rule would also require providers to encourage family participation—such as by involving the parents or guardians—for young people seeking family planning services and to document the specific actions taken by providers to encourage such participation. It would also task providers with collecting information about teenagers, such as their age and the age of their sexual partners, for their medical records.<br /><br />&nbsp; The impact this could have on teen clients worries many providers. As Garcia explains, it is possible that young people will no longer feel they can receive safe, confidential care at their Title X clinic and instead may forgo care, putting them at risk of unintended pregnancies and STIs. Providers may see “fewer adolescents once word gets out that questions would be asked about sexual partners,” Garcia says. “Adolescents come because they know they can get services without being interrogated or questioned.” Fonzi adds, “You risk violating that covenant relationship of trust. This is an intentional move by the administration to erode patient-provider trust.”<br /><br /><u>Conclusion</u><br /><br />&nbsp; The Title X program has successfully delivered reliable and medically accurate family planning care to millions of women across the country for almost 50 years. It has also empowered young people to seek reproductive health care during an important time in their lives, based on the premise that such care will be confidential and safe. The Trump-Pence administration’s domestic gag rule will reverse decades of progress, imperiling the health of these women and threatening the network of providers that strives to serve them. In the fights that loom ahead, collective action can be taken by submitting public comments, hosting rallies, engaging with elected officials, and speaking truth to power. The American people cannot afford to cede any more ground when it comes to reproductive health and rights—women’s lives depend on it.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Osub Ahmed is a policy analyst for the Women’s Initiative at the <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/" target="_blank">Center for American Progress</a>.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>Author’s note:</i> The interviews and quotes throughout this column have been edited for clarity. They were conducted by the author on the following dates: Patricia Fonzi and Santaisha Garcia, June 22, 2018; Brenda Thomas, June 22, 2018; Margaret Holloway, June 29, 2018; and Kami Geoffray, July 6, 2018.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by the Center for American Progress.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-55592356090435508062018-07-22T13:00:00.000-05:002018-07-22T13:00:13.881-05:00Mark Zuckerberg’s comments about Holocaust denial are disturbing&nbsp; In an <a href="https://www.recode.net/platform/amp/2018/7/18/17575156/mark-zuckerberg-interview-facebook-recode-kara-swisher" target="_blank">interview</a> with a tech magazine published last week, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that while he personally finds Holocaust denial "deeply offensive ... at the end of the day, I don't believe that our platform should take that down."<br /><br />&nbsp; After a burst of criticism, Zuckerberg <a href="https://www.recode.net/2018/7/18/17588116/mark-zuckerberg-clarifies-holocaust-denial-offensive" target="_blank">clarified</a> his remarks, but only with respect to his personal feelings about those who engage with Holocaust denial. His company's policy, on the other hand, remains. On Facebook, it's officially permissible to proliferate content that denies the crimes of Nazi Germany.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; Zuckerberg's stance is highly revealing about his own understanding of the historical context of <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/holocaust-denial" target="_blank">Holocaust denial</a> and how current hate groups operate. He fails on both counts.<br /><br />&nbsp; At its foundation, Holocaust denial is a strategy to rehabilitate Nazism. George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party, was "the first postwar American neo-Nazi to appreciate the strategic necessity of Holocaust denial," <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2001/nazi-international" target="_blank">according to a biographer</a>, and helped popularize the deeply offensive lie that the Holocaust was a fraud concocted by Jews.<br /><br />&nbsp; In 1978, recognizing the need for a subtler approach, <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/willis-carto" target="_blank">Willis Carto</a> founded the first major American Holocaust denial organization, the <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/institute-historical-review" target="_blank">Institute for Historical Review</a>. Still active, IHR projects a pseudo-academic sheen to promote denialism.<br /><br />&nbsp; The Southern Poverty Law Center currently identifies 10 active Holocaust denial hate groups, four of which have a minor presence on Facebook. These hate groups, however, remain on the fringe. What they never dreamed of is the resurgence in antisemitism online, enabled by social media companies like Facebook. Zuckerberg’s preferred approach, that the “best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech,” needs to be reconciled with that fact. As a private company, Facebook can have something to do with that “good speech.”<br /><br />&nbsp; The intent of yesterday’s Rockwell and Carto is the same as today’s neo-Nazis at the Daily Stormer or on 4chan: to erode the public’s understanding of the Holocaust in order to make fascist and Nazi ideas appealing again. The danger grows as the years go by and fewer people alive today actually witnessed the events of the 1930s and 1940s. In a poll released earlier this year, 41 percent of all respondents and 66 percent of young Americans failed to identify Auschwitz as an extermination camp.<br /><br />&nbsp; Zuckerberg’s refusal to address propaganda as hateful and obvious as Holocaust denial also bodes poorly for other vulnerable communities, such as American Muslims, a community regularly demonized by rhetoric espoused by even the president. As it stands, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant propagandists easily clear the low hurdles set up by platforms like Facebook.<br /><br />&nbsp; Whether Zuckerberg likes it or not, Facebook has an immense responsibility to fight hate on its platform. Last summer, the organizers of the deadly “Unite the Right” gathering in Charlottesville used Facebook to promote their event, the largest white supremacist rally in decades. A year later, the company is still refusing to meet its responsibility.<br /><br />&nbsp; <i>This article was published by the <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/" target="_blank">Southern Poverty Law Center</a>, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.</i>Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5331546133526977388.post-85504892398542435112018-07-21T13:00:00.000-05:002018-07-21T13:00:00.719-05:00Hank Sanders: Senate Sketches #1623 - If we looked back a little, we would see our way forward much clearer&nbsp; I am not an immigrant. I am not a descendant of immigrants. My fore parents were not immigrants, but they arrived in this country from another continent. They did not come by choice. They came by force and violence. They came in chains, but they were not immigrants.<br /><br />&nbsp; Virtually every nationality came to this country as immigrants. Each was escaping something – starvation, religious persecution, incarceration, war, poverty, lack of opportunity, etc. Each was seeking something. My African ancestors did not come seeking anything. My Africans ancestors were not running from anything. They appreciated their life in the Mother Land. They did not want to leave. They came against their will to much worse and horrific situations.<br /><a name='more'></a><br />&nbsp; I escaped from Alabama when I was 18 years of age. I went to New York City. I was not an immigrant, but I felt like one. I was running from something when I left Alabama. I was running from terrible racial segregation and oppression. I was running from low wages and back-breaking work. I was running from a dearth of freedom and a lack of opportunity. I was running to freedom and opportunity. New York was a different place. I was in a different culture. I was looked down on by others who came before me. I started off working the lowest paying and least desirable jobs. I worked alongside immigrants on jobs no one else wanted.<br /><br />&nbsp; After law school, I spent nearly a year in Nigeria, West Africa. However, I was not an immigrant because I did not come to stay. I went with the intention of returning to the United States within a year. I was in a very different place and culture. I was not running from something. I was not running <i>to</i> something. I was a visitor. I am not an immigrant.<br /><br />&nbsp; Native Americans are not immigrants. They are not descendants of immigrants. Someone on their way to India mistakenly called them “Indians” and the name stuck. Native Americans were treated much worse than immigrants. Most of their homelands were taken. Most of their culture was crushed. Most of their lives were wiped out. It is estimated that 13 million Native Americans lived in their homeland that now makes up what we call the United States of America. When the displacement and the culture-smashing and the killing and the dying were over, there were less than two million Native Americans.<br /><br />&nbsp; The United States is now the richest and the most powerful country in the world. It was taken from Native Americans. There is plenty of room for additional people. There is room for more immigrants. But we are closing our doors. We are building walls. The Native Americans did not close their doors. They did not build walls. The British came not by invitation but as conquerors.<br /><br />&nbsp; The history of immigration is a powerful story of people seeking a better life. Our legal history is a terrible story of limiting those who are just seeking freedom and opportunity. Some sought and received. Then they and/or their descendants turned around and limited others from seeking the very same freedom and opportunity. One would think that they would gladly extend to others the same opportunities they had received. But lo and behold, that was not the better part of their human nature. So many were immigrants.<br /><br />&nbsp; The United States Congress started enacting immigration laws in 1790, only one year after this country became the United States of America. At first they did not limit people immigrating to the United States. They just prevented them from becoming citizens. Eventually they started denying immigrants the right to enter this country. Our law books are filled with laws restricting the same freedom and opportunities their fore parents had sought and achieved. So many wanted to be immigrants.<br /><br />&nbsp; It was 1870 before American laws allowed Africans to become immigrants and citizens. That was five years after the Civil War had ended. It was much longer before Native Americans could become citizens in a country where they were never immigrants. In fact, it may have been 1965 when Native Americans achieved the full rights of citizenship with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It was the same act that provided African Americans the full rights of citizenship with the right to vote. All those treated as immigrants were not immigrants.<br /><br />&nbsp; It hurts me when I hear some African Americans say, “I’m tired of those Mexicans taking our jobs.” I know how easy it is to be <i>against</i> something. I know how hard it is to be <i>for</i> something. I am not hurt, but I am disturbed when some Whites make the same statements about immigrants. I know that 1.3 million Mexican Americans were deported or forced to leave this country in 1954. Many were citizens. They called it “Operation Wet Back.” I know that 110,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry were placed in concentration camps. Some of those individuals were treated much worse than immigrants.<br /><br />&nbsp; Immigrants nearly always get the least desirable jobs. When I went north, I got the least desirable jobs. For example, take farm work right now. I don’t know any Whites or African Americans who want to work in the fields for someone else. Some years ago, I would plant huge gardens. I would tell persons that they could have all the vegetables they wanted. All they had to do was go into the fields and gather them. Fieldwork, even for ourselves, is not desirable. They did go, but they asked that I harvest the vegetables and bring them to them. Immigrants come in all shapes, colors, and circumstances.<br /><br />&nbsp; Immigrants are more than people coming to a country. Some of us are still treated like immigrants. Normally the new immigrants take work left by previous waves of immigrants. After hundreds of years, some of us are still the last hired and the first fired. Some of us still occupy the lowest rungs of the economic and social ladders. I am not an immigrant. We are not immigrants. But we know what it is like to be treated as immigrants.<br /><br />Epilogue – This country is in a rage over immigration. We forget that those who came before most of us were immigrants. If we just looked back a little, we would see our way forward much clearer.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--rdNGiYqLdM/U4YhDd3nYkI/AAAAAAAAAGY/Wfd7_wSBzZ4kRexzpJBE41VQX21HOUMnQCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/Hank%2BSanders.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="283" data-original-width="202" height="200" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--rdNGiYqLdM/U4YhDd3nYkI/AAAAAAAAAGY/Wfd7_wSBzZ4kRexzpJBE41VQX21HOUMnQCPcBGAYYCw/s200/Hank%2BSanders.jpg" width="142" /></a></div>&nbsp; <i>About the author:</i> Hank Sanders represents Senate District 23 in the <a href="http://www.legislature.state.al.us/aliswww/default.aspx" target="_blank">Alabama Legislature</a>.Joseph O. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04830099575387185293noreply@blogger.com0